That's some doctor. Well, that's what he said. Doctor. >> Yeah, we >> we're at the qu get Jackie's attention. You happen to have a copy of our report. [Music]
>> I think that's a little bit of everything. >> Good evening everyone. This is the Township of Franklin Planning Board meeting at 7 p.m. on August the 19th. If everyone please rise for a flag salute. To >> the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands.
One nation under God, indivisible, liberty, liy, justice for all. >> Thank you. >> Pursuant with the open public meetings act, adequate notice of this meeting has been provided by the following posted on the township website, posted on the bulletin board within the municipal
building, printed in South Jersey Times, and the Sentinels. >> Okay, Mr. Thanks, Christian. >> You got it, >> Mr. Brandt. here. >> Mr. Clark, >> Mr. Doyle, Mr. Kelly
>> here, >> Mr. Mady, >> Mr. Suede, >> I'm here. >> Mr. Ransom, Mr. Cahoot, Mayor Bruno >> here, >> Mr. Travalone >> here. >> Chairman P >> here. >> Okay.
Um, there's no resolutions from the previous meeting. At this time, we'll call the applicant uh for PB2503 uh Ana. >> Good evening, sir. >> Chris Men. My name's Chris Men. I'm an attorney with LBO. I represent Anisa
Investment Bank. My two clients are here tonight. Would you like them to come up? >> Yeah, let's call him up. And do you have an engineer as well this evening with you or >> uh we have Rob Tumer >> or anybody else to testify? Yeah, Rob, you you can come up, too. >> Council, why don't you give me the names
and spellings of each person who's going to testify? >> Oh, well, they can. >> Yeah, if you don't mind. >> All right. So, why don't I'll do it each individually. Sorry. Would you state your full name, please, and spell it? >> I put the microphone, please. Thank you.
>> My first name is Nathan. N I P I N. Last name is Son Durker. S O N D R A R. I'm one of the five owners of the parcel of land that >> Okay, sir. Raise your right hand.
>> Do you swear the testimony that you will be given tonight, it will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. >> Yes. I agree. >> Okay. Thank you. And we'll take you one at a time. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Your full name. >> Hello. My name is Gandhu. I
don't take me a little tomorrow. I can do that as well. And I'll spell it for you. It's G A N G- A D H A R. >> Yeah, that's my first. >> That's your first name. And your last name is R A M U. >> No, that's my middle name.
>> Oh, and your last name is >> I marapali. [Music] >> M A D A T H A N A P A L L I. Yes. Okay. My my Oh, I'm not going to attempt to say it. Sir, raise your right hand, please. Do you swear that the passion
you're about to give before this board tonight is will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Uh my name is Robert Tumer. Um I'm a project manager. Uh I'm here on behalf of uh John Trainer. He is the uh
professional uh land surveyor and professional engineer and uh so yeah I'm here to answer any questions um regarding the project. >> Okay. So raise your right hand. You swear that the testimony you will give tonight before this body will be the
truth and the whole truth and nothing but the truth. >> Okay. >> Thank you. Okay. Men, you can proceed in whatever order you would like. >> All right. No problem. Uh I guess we can just start I guess with the uh the engineer letter. Want to run
through that or would you like me to just present on the background of the project? >> If you if you can present and then bring your um one of your witnesses up to testify regarding that presentation. >> Okay, no problem. Um so the subject property we're talking about tonight, uh
block 3908, blocks 1 2 3 4 5 32 and 33. Um these are located in the village district zone and my client the applicant tonight is seeking approval for a redivision converting uh the existing seven lots and consolidating
them into four lots. Um we're also seeking a C variance for one of the proposed lots depicted as lot one on the plan. Um that requires a bulk variance for minimum lot area. >> 30,000 square ft required. We're
proposing 17,196 um and as addressed in the plan, but also just some background here related to um the the negative and positive criteria. So, my client's purpose in front of the board tonight obviously is to take a a pre-existing
um core situation where there's seven non-conforming lots, consolidating them into four lots, only one of which is nonconforming uh related to the minimum lot area uh as depicted on the plans. You can kind of see that I believe it uh consolidates
lots four and five as it currently exists. um and you know all of which are are lacking in size, frontage, etc. Um so really we're only seeking that that one variance um related to the lot area. So our our position is that you know
we're bringing it a lot closer into perfect compliance with with the applicable ordinances uh as the you know positive criteria goes. our clients are proposing obviously not in connection with this application but our long-term goal um for the pro project is to
develop it into four single family residences. Um so it'll be used residential use you know keep the neighborhood feel uh grow the neighborhood community um and add to the surrounding areas in that way. Um so
that's a little bit of background for the project as well as you know our our negative positive criteria there for the um the bulk variance. If there's no questions at this time we can kind of jump into the review letter. >> Um just so that I can have some testimony under oath. Will one of your
clients just come up? >> Sir, you're under oath. Just want to have you testify that the presentation that you've heard your attorney give, is that the truth? The whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> Yes, that's true. >> Okay. Thank you. We have some more test. >> Okay.
>> Criteria or do you want to move on to the engineer? >> The uh let's let's go to the engineers report now, please. [Music] So just running through uh I guess section three is really the first section regarding completeness
um that that were asked to address. Um not not the two pieces of information that were not included in the submission being all existing structures and wooded areas within the parcel uh or within 200 ft of said parcel. uh as well as the
location of all streams and brooks uh on the subdivision plan. Uh you know, as a condition of approval tonight, we're fine to revise the plans accordingly to uh include those references. uh section four zoning that that's an accurate depiction of the the minimum
lot area and the proposed non-conforming lot regarding the minimum lot area as lot one. Um the variance being requested as noted down in 5A. Um you know that that's the main point of our application here
tonight as well as you know approval of the uh the redivision. Um the design waiverss we I'll go back to our engineer um Rob I guess and and talk about this if if
you'd like. But as far as the site development uh and major subdivision having sidewalks, um you know, I I think we can do a little bit more investigating there. I noticed on Paul Street there's no existing sidewalks where that is. Um so we're happy, you
know, to formally apply for a waiver there or whatever is needed. And similarly with you know delc drive um the plans when this is ultimately brought into development uh our client and my clients don't have an issue with you know obviously complying and uh if
it becomes an issue we'll be happy to formally request a waiver. Um but at this time our plan is to comply when we come back um with our plans for development [Music] the uh depth and width ratio as far as
that goes regarding the uh we will be seeking a waiver there. Um, I'm happy to speak with the council and the engineer to see what's required to formally submit for that that waiver. But due to the unique circumstance of this lot, as
you can tell on the plans, it's like a almost like a trapezoid with a triangle attached. Um, you know, configuring it as Rob did was really the most practical way that we could find to comply with the uh the lot area as well as the required frontage under the ordinances.
I'm sorry, council. The are you talking about a second waiver? The the one the C wa I'm aware of the first waiver. Are you are you introducing a second waiver at this time? >> I'm just addressing the uh section. >> I can address that if you don't mind. >> Okay. Yeah. The code still has on the
books the provision that the uh the ratio of the depth to the width of a lot cannot exceed what is it 2 to three or 2:1 something like that. >> Okay. This is configuration. Also, the master plan we adopted last year specifically recommends to remove that provision and that ordinance has already
been drafted. I don't think it's been formally adopted by the committee yet, but >> okay, >> that's in the works. The master plan says we should be getting rid of that. >> I just call it a second waiver and I wasn't sure what it was. >> In terms of the actual procedures, there is no additional procedure. Just be assuming this board acts favorably on the overall application that would be
incorporated into the resolution of approval. There's no other forms you got to fill out or applications you got to make or anything like that. >> Thank you, >> Chris. I don't mean to cut you off, but I actually believe that ordinance has been adopted. >> It has been adopted. >> That's not even applicable. >> All right. Well, sorry for wasting
divorce time, >> but you may you still may be in that 30-day window. It may just So, you're not off the hook yet. >> All right. >> I knew it was introduced. >> How'd you like that? Council picked up on that. >> At the time the application was filed, it was in place, but that >> that's that's already been nullified. I don't think it needs any further
discussion, though. All right. Uh that brings us into section six, the um the planning comments. You know, as noted um regarding the positive and negative criteria here, um you know, the the
practical hardship is the pre-existing seven non-conforming lots. And obviously um you know as I've described and as depicted on the plans due to the uh odd nature shape of the property the obscure
frontage on you know both Paul Street and um DelC Drive you know um our proposed plan into the four lots was was the best way that we could configure with our engineer to best meet the applicable bulk variances set forth earlier in the engineering letter. Um
grant we are a little short on the lot area for proposed lot one. Um but again it's we're it's our position that we're taking a bad existing situation and turning it into a much better situation.
Um with only having that one non-conforming lot. Um again the granting of the applicant's request request will serve the public good as you know it's our intention to bring more residential homes into the local
community. Um creating better places for people to live and transforming uh an existing vacant parcel or seven vacant parcel into hopefully four habitable uh individual parcels. I think that brings us down into
the again residential purposes residential purpose um signature line on the subdivision plan. We're happy to revise that um you know the general comments addressing those. We're we're also happy to comply um with whatever
the board may deem necessary. Um, we can add the coordinate values and the deeds if we're approved. We're happy to prepare those as well. Okay. >> Do you have any comments? >> Yeah. Yeah. Ultimately, we're seeking
that, you know, testimony be regarding the easement that's depicted on the plan. >> Mhm. >> So, you know, we've been coordinating a little bit with uh Matt Lines. Um, I'm going to quote, but get get art keeper.
>> Okay. And, uh, I've been going back and forth with him. We're trying to still track down a little bit more information regarding the, uh, existing drainage easement that obviously you can see running across the parcels. It's uh, my client's goal obviously to to dedicate
this uh, via easement um, you know, to the appropriate governing body. um and some conversations right before the meeting um that maybe you know the department of transportation um you know I think those conversations are still
ongoing I I wish I could provide a little bit more clarity there but we're still kind of in the factf finding uh steps for that obviously before any development's done uh we would get that issue resolved and you know we're
willing to work with whatever governing body it's is appropriate there. Um just unfortunately we don't have a lot of recorded information as to you know when and where it was uh was put in but you know we obviously want to deal with it
in the appropriate manner and make sure the uh the appropriate municipal hands are have access to it and are able to maintain it. >> So quick question like a title report. So, there's a there's a title report
with a it's um not an easement. It was like a deed with a deed restriction from 1960, which I believe was two or three owners prior to the current owners here. Um, and so I've been, like I said, coordinating with
Matt Lines to try and get in touch with the town engineers and, you know, maybe we could touch base a a little bit later, but, um, we're trying to figure out who was the appropriate person to kind of oversee this or where it came from in the first place. It's, you know,
it's, um, a deed restriction related to the maintenance of a a drainage easement, but it's not very clear as to what parties are responsible for what. on that. >> Yeah, the whole gray area.
>> I'm happy to provide the the board of the reported document. Um, but you know, it's not clear where or who actually put it in if it existed prior to those owners or not. >> But the infrastructure that's there clearly drains from Delta Drive. I
>> believe it drains out onto drive. Are you able to talk about that? >> To the microphone, please. Thank you. >> Can you describe what structure is there? >> I was actually
located this drainage drainage stage. And it uh it actually continues [Music] looks like strange these homes
into this looks like the drainage flowing this direction for >> contrary to elevation cuz I just read the map and Deli Drive is about 10400 5
and all the way to the east is about 101. >> It could be cuz there is a drop structure. Um piping >> conc there is a concrete metal pipe or I see the >> the plan depicts that there's two uh
concrete pipes and also there's a drain structure. Okay. Connecting the >> are they open or you don't know? >> Uh I think they are. >> Okay. So, so just get clarification with with your statement about the the ditch
continues. Um the forget the the street name over here. I think it's I don't know if that's not Paul. Paul's right here. Um straight the street behind it where the ditch is adjacent to. >> Um I did a site visit. I didn't see any
ditch on the other side. From my understanding, the ditch is isolated. Um is that is that what your your field findings were? Yeah, you're correct. The ditch does not >> continue past the road. >> Yep. >> You know the name of it.
>> Because it does end at that street, >> but you know, it continues off this and terminates through the street. And then the street is here. It
terminates right after that. Yeah, there's some elevation. So ownership of this uh drainage basin stays with the property. Correct. >> That's our understanding at this point that >> and it's just a a right of way by
someone or some entity. >> Correct. That back in I believe 1960. >> Okay. >> Um but obviously it's a material you know drainage system for the surrounding community. We want to make sure you know >> is this something the state do could
have done >> possibly but uh that was our conversation that we had just before the meeting. Um I think next steps are obviously uh getting in contact with them and seeing if they have any record. >> When we had reached out to the state they didn't have any record of it. Um,
but that being said that if there's any modification that impacts the storm water, if if the pipe truly does go into the back of the inlet like it's depictked on the depicted on the plan, they would have jurisdiction um over reviewing those calculations. >> Understood.
[Music] >> So tonight, you're not proposing any construction. >> Yeah, we're simply seeking. However, in the future, whoever purchas it or decides to build would have to address to get the setbacks. >> Certainly, and I think we've just kind
of begun our preliminary conversations a couple weeks ago regarding, you know, the research regarding this, but yes, it will be addressed. >> Should you be successful this evening in this move to resolution, should our resolution include that language?
I think our resolution would be would include that any further development any development of would be subject to uh do approval if required. >> Um because I don't think it's I think we've established it's not the town's
drainage ditch. >> We don't want to accept responsibility for something that we already don't have responsibility. >> However, this drawing says to be dedicated to Franklin Township. Yeah, >> we can revise that accordingly.
>> I think if I can throw something out, ultimately if there was some sort of deed, we can eventually hopefully figure out what the deed restriction was. If I have to take a wild guess, this is a drainage for all the houses at front on Paul Street that it drains back to them. And it's probably something almost like typically you do subdivisions today,
you'd have a separate lot maintained by a homeowners association that has collective ownership of the drainage or an easement on a particular property. That's my guess is what it is. I'm I'm not a survey or engineer though. But I think ultimately unless there's some sort of responsibility that the township
accepted 65 years ago, we see no point in the township accepting this now. >> But I think the condition of approval could be that they would work with us and and the board solicitor to >> as well as Matt Lion's office, whoever it needs to be to to figure out >> what the actual deed restriction on the
property is and, you know, adjust the plan accordingly. And if if it's private parties need to have ownership of that easement rather than the township, maybe it's that. >> So if a motion is made this evening to pass this minor subdivision, that language should be in it.
>> Yes. >> Correct. To protect this town from >> something along those lines. Yes. Liability in the future on that drainage easement. >> Ownership and acceptance of the easement would be subject to uh review by all the the town professionals. >> Yeah. condition of approval would be the
applicant must work with the township and and any other um related bodies to determine the the initial or the >> it's not an easement the >> dedicated >> the dedication >> dedication
>> uh the initial dedication and to determine the appropriate um party to maintain that moving forward just out of >> curiosity the the proposed 30 ft where where's the 30 ft >> is that from a tax map or is it from
deed? >> So 30 30 ft. There's there's a pipe >> down the center. So you're going 15t either side. So that's your own language proposed 30 ft or did it come from someplace? >> It's it's it didn't come from anywhere.
It's from our experience what's needed to gain access. >> All right. So, it came from your office that you're proposing a 30 foot 15 either side. >> Correct. >> It's not written in English anywhere. This right of way, the width of the rightway.
>> Uh, correct. >> Interesting. >> Wow. I I think we both >> in both counts. I think we want to remove the 30 ft um so there's no confusion and remove the dedication to the township and address the uh in the
future applications that uh the easement needs to be addressed and what whatever with that easement needs to be because if we leave the 30 ft in air tonight is as if we we have accepted that at this point and I I don't know you know
exactly how wide it's needed that's an engineering question for the future So I think both the 30 feet should be removed and dedicated to the township gets removed and in a future application it would get the easement would get
addressed at that time and is that fair to everybody? >> Yes certainly. >> Yeah. Chris Ed, you all right? Just one point of clarification there. I don't think it's unlikely you'll get another application before this board. So it would be whoever is buying these properties wanting to build a single
family home. Part of the resolution compliance would be sorting this out and then >> sorting it out. Yeah. Whether it comes back to a board or whether it's a buildable lot, it needs to get sorted out. >> But it is unlikely that anything is going to come back to this board, >> right? >> To to add on to that when you know if
and when they would come in for for any building permits or anything, it would be you know be a condition for any of that ahead of time. So if it's sold off as four individual lots, that would be something that obviously the township would be aware of already and need to be addressed prior to that.
Okay. Anybody else have questions on the easement? >> Yeah, back to the easement. Uh, should you again you be successful and and and get your approvals this evening, will you file by plat or file by deed? And if you're filing by deed, then we want some
language in there in reference to this pipeline. [Music] But you have the option of filing by plat. Correct. >> So in our resolution once again there should be some language that all
four of these deeds cuz all four of them touch this pipeline >> should all have the same all four. Just those two. Yes, it does. Yep. in the back depends upon working it out earlier. I think we approval has to be conditional.
>> And in addition to that point, I think that that our office requested that they update the the plan anyhow. So they need to resubmit the plan as part of as part of our recommendation. >> Okay, agreed. Jimmy, did you have a question down there? I'm sorry. >> Not not on the easement, but on the
investment company. I just have a couple questions. Um Ania Investments Inc. Are are you two individuals the only officers or are there other officers as well? >> Uh we are the owners of uh manager.
>> Yeah. I'm one of the directors. >> And and is it I mean is it owned by you two or are there other investors? >> There are three more industries. >> Three more. >> Yeah. >> And how long have you owned this property? >> About three years now. >> Three years. Okay. Jimmy, the bottom of page one of the application, it's listed
here. >> He's a listing off. >> Yep. Thank you. That's >> council. Uh the question I have on the proposed lot one, the one that needs the uh variance. Um was there an attempt to uh purchase additional property off of
lot six to make it a conforming lot or is it would that have been impractical? >> Uh can I grab my >> Yep. Good question. >> I think not to answer the question for them, but I'll I'll answer the question
for them. Lot six in particular looks I don't even know if you took the if you took the entirety of that lot. I don't think you added it to lot one, you'd get to 30,000 ft. And there is already it's not shown on their plan, but there's already a home in the middle of that lot. >> Okay. All right. Well, that then that's that's why it would be impractical to buy. Uh just wanted to get on the record
that the attempt was made. >> Well, the reason why the attempt wasn't made. >> To build off that question, were there any preliminary investigations done whether lot the lot is buildable for septic and well? [Music] >> Again, our our goal for tonight is
really improve. >> Yeah. Yeah. Reason I was asking is if ultimately if you can't build the septic on lot one of the [Music] >> Okay. Any other comments on or questions from the board at this point before I
open to the public? I'm going to back up on what Ed said since lot one is 60% of the proposed minimum size cuz it's supposed to be 30,000 and since you asked the questions about septic
can we ask for a septic dilution for that one lot in the event a septic system is ordered for lot one >> do you mean build >> you know how the pinelands requires uh What's the term? >> Nitrate uh
>> nitrate dilution. Something along those lines. >> Something along those lines because it is a very small parcel. >> They're not here on that application though. >> Correct. It's not until a building permit would be required. >> Right. >> But it is >> at that point it could be required but
not >> roughly only it's 40% shy of the land needed which is a large percentage. So is is your question in in regards to >> Well, I'd hate to see somebody buy lot one with the hopes of buying and
building and then they can't because the county says >> we're not approving it for building though. >> I know we're not. >> I think I think to his question is is to my question about them even being able to build it on the property. So for example, if they can't even actually construct septic on that, then lot one
is unbuildable, which then would they ultimately propose only three lots? Is that what your ultimate question is? If you look at the total square footage of the track in its entirety, it exceeds what would be required for lots. So >> overall,
>> yeah, it' be impractical to have a requirement to use an advanced treatment system on this with some nice resolution model when their overall site uh exceeds exceeds what would be. >> Right. >> All right. Well, thank you, Jason.
>> Okay, you're good. This time I entertain a motion to open the uh hearing to the public. >> Motion to open. >> Is there a second? All in favor? >> I. Okay. At this time, we're open for uh public comment or question. Anyone wants to come forward? >> Motion to close. Open public portion.
>> I'll make a motion to close. >> All in favor? >> I >> I All right, Jack. Oh, Jack. All the notific >> everything was in order on the notification.
>> Everything was in order. Okay. Um any other questions? Any comments? What's your pleasure? >> I make a motion to approve um with the uh conditions outlined previously by second. >> I have a motion and second.
>> Before we before we get a second, Jackie, can you just recite the the conditions? The conditions are um subject to the revised plan. Condition of approval of the applicant must work with the township and the other any other agencies um responsible possibly
for the drainage including the DOT to determine the um right of way and the appropriate um if at all any agency to maintain it or does the applicant have to maintain it. Um that's a condition of the approval. In addition, the plan changes
that uh Mr. Trevalone I think it was Mr. Trevalone 30 foot uh to remove that Mr. P. >> You remove the verbiage and the township taking ownership >> the township >> and the 30 foot w right away with >> right >> and how about the com. Yeah. Okay. That the township assumes ownership.
>> Right. just removed. >> And then the applicant agreed during their testimony to um modify their plans according to all the other comments made by the engineer >> and and the variance on the lot one
would be uh part of the approval. >> We got the request for variance on lot one. >> Council, are you okay with uh all the conditions stated? >> Yes. >> Okay. All right. I have a motion in a second. Uh
uh Chris, roll call vote, please. >> Mr. Brandt, >> yes. >> Mr. Kelly, >> yes. >> Mr. Swed, >> yes. >> Mayor Bruno, >> yes. >> Mr. Traion, >> yes. >> Jeremy Hash, >> yes. >> All right. Congratulations, gentlemen.
>> Thank you very much. >> Okay, Chris, do we have any correspondence this evening? >> No. >> No correspondence. All right. Uh communications. Nope. uh the minutes of uh June 17th, 2025. Is there a motion to accept the minutes
submitted electronically? >> I make a motion. >> I have a motion. Is there a second? >> I have a motion and second. All in favor? >> I >> uh and I abstain. I was at that meeting. Uh Jackie, do we uh the uh July meeting
was canceled? Is there uh a requirement to accept the the the minutes and the minutes being that the meeting was canceled or we don't need to do anything for the July meeting? >> No, there are no minutes from the July meeting. >> Right. There is no meeting. >> No meeting. No minutes. Right.
>> So, uh the fact that it was canceled is sufficient. Correct. >> Okay. Got it. All right. All right. Back to you, Jack. Any need for closed session? >> No need for close session. >> Thank you, Jack. Uh comments from the board. Anybody have any comments?
At this time, I'll entertain a motion to adjurnn. >> Make a motion. >> Have a motion. >> Second. All in favor? >> I. >> Thank you very much.