accordance with the open public meetings act PL 1975 chapter 231 adequate notice of this regular meeting of the planning board of the of Franklin Township has been provided. If everyone could please stand for the pledge of allegiance.
>> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Okay. Uh Mark Dancy, Jennifer Ragna,
Mahir Rafi asked to be excused this evening. Councilman and Barson, I do not see Huh. Uh Theodore Chase. here. >> Robert Lort >> here. >> Charles Brown >> here.
>> Robert Thomas >> here. >> Sammy Siobhan. Michaelini >> uh here. All right. So, um before we begin, um we're going to just
rejigger the um agenda a bit um to make it smooth. And this probably won't take very long because we have no hearings. We're going to move the ordinance draft discussion to after the discussion items. Uh then we're going to go to public comments. Then we're going to go to board comments. Then we'll adjourn.
Right. Um and given what I see in the audience, there won't be much need to open. Um so um but we'll do it anyway. That's what our attorney says to do. Um minutes for the regular meeting for May 6th. >> So only Ted,
Bob, Thomas, and yourself can vote. Uh, okay. In that case, I will move the minutes. >> Second. >> Theodore Chase. >> Yes. >> Robert Thomas. >> Yes. >> Michael Orsini.
>> Yes. Two resolutions. The first uh Somerset County. This was for the um it's for the open space, right? Yeah. >> Yep. >> Um so, uh PLN260000003. Uh I move to approve. Same three people
can vote. >> So >> Bob Thomas and Ted, somebody has to >> second. >> Thank you. >> Theodore Chase. >> Yes. >> Robert Thomas. >> Yes. >> Michael Orsini. >> Yes. This is uncontroversial, folks. Um
uh Saddam Associates. This is the subdivision of of um 1acre lot from the um farmland preserved which is by right. So move to approve that. >> Okay. Bob Leort can vote. Charles Brown, Robert Thomas and yourself.
>> Second. >> Robert Lort. >> Yes. >> Charles Brown. >> Yes. >> Robert Thomas. >> Yes. >> And Chairman Arcini? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> All right. So discussion. First item, uh, implement recommendations of the
2026 re-examination. Um, this was our lowhanging fruit one, >> correct? >> All right. And this was introduced by council now. >> Yes. So, this is the referral. >> Yes. This is the referral from council for you to review if uh it's
inconsistent with the master plan, if you have any recommendations. Um, this, as you know, the board um had prepared this ordinance and sent it to council. This is being referred back to without any changes. Um I'll certainly opine that is it is not inconsistent with the master plan because it is implementing
recommendations in it. >> Indeed. >> All right. So in that case um I would move to uh approve it uh and refer back to council that it is not inconsistent with the master plan. >> Second.
Theodore Chase. >> Yeah. >> Robert Lort, >> yes. >> Charles Brown, >> yes. >> Robert Thomas, >> yes. >> And Chairman Arcini, >> yes. >> So, we have a resolution. Oh, sorry. Go ahead. >> You go. >> I stole your thunder. Go ahead.
>> No, no, it's okay. Uh, Mr. Chairman, just um as this is an ordinance review when it's relatively ministerial in uh effect, I typically prepare a resolution for the board's consideration uh recommending the uh ordinance for uh adoption by the council so that we don't need to meet again in order to just
adopt that resolution. Typically, it's timesensitive because we only get 30 days. So, I would ask that the board consider that resolution uh endorsing the uh the ordinance. >> Okay. I would move to approve uh the resolution um endorsing the changes that we just voted to approve.
>> Second. >> Theodore Chase. >> Yes. Robert Lor. >> Yes. >> Charles Brown. >> Yes. >> Robert Thomas. >> Yes. >> Michael. >> Yes. >> All right. Uh the second uh uh discussion item we have is amending um
the um land development uh update planning and zoning fees, escro deposits, etc. And so I'll turn it over to Mark for explanation on that. >> Yes. So uh every so often we review our u the requirements for fees and escrow deposits for applications that either go
before the board or applications that get reviewed administratively. I believe the last time we did that was about 15 years ago. Um so it's about time we do it again. Um the changes that are shown in this uh uh ordinance um basically as far as escrow fees and increases in
application fees and review fees, those are things that u developers or uh applicants would pay to go before either the zoning board or the planning board. Uh we basically uh increase those uh with the intent of you know essentially trying to cover the township's cost you
whether staff or consultant to review those things. Uh we did review the fees, the proposed fees in line with other uh similar towns around us and they're certainly in line with what other towns charge. Uh the other things that were that are in here are fees that most of
the fees that go before that are paid by homeowners are zoning permits. Um we kept those relatively low. Uh we're proposing just a even right now it's from 25 to30 to $50 and there's really no rhyme or reason why those fees change
because the the the staff time to process those are the same. So we're proposing an even $50 fee across the board. Again, that's very consistent in line with other towns charge. The only two that are higher are if it's construction of a commercial building or
a new house, those fees are 100 because those are more involved reviews. Um, the only other thing I I think worth pointing out is when somebody's proposing a um to build a new house or or an addition or a large accessory structure like a pole barn or or an
ingground pool, those get reviewed internally by our engineering department. We've always had a professional review fee for that. Uh we're proposing to bump those up a little bit. Um the main way where that we're proposing to increase that is where there's an increase in imperous
coverage of a thousand square feet or more. Uh, and the reason why that would get bumped up more than the others is because that's when storm water comes into review. Yeah. >> So, I think the board is is aware of that. Once you there's an increase of a thousand square feet or more, the applicant needs to propose some type
design, some type of storm water management, dry well, etc. And that obviously involves more staff time than just reviewing, you know, the the rest of the matter. Uh, so I think that's the ordinance in a nutshell, Mr. Chairman. >> Thanks, Mark. Um any questions of the
board or Mark on this? >> All right. Well, seeing none, um I would move to approve the updated fees and escro deposits as Mark just outlined. >> I'll second. >> Bob, is your uh Bob Lord, is your mic
on? >> I hear you say second, but I didn't know if anybody heard it. >> Okay, >> I will second. >> Thank you. Uh, Theodore Chase. >> Yes. >> Robert Leort, >> yes. >> Charles Brown,
>> yes. >> Robert Thomas, >> yes. >> Michael Orini, >> yes. >> Um, >> and in a similar way, there is a resolution memorializing your action. So, this can go back to the council. >> Yes, there is. So, I would move to approve um the resolution um
memorializing what we just approved. Second >> Theodore Chase. >> Yes. >> Robert Leort, >> yes. >> Charles Brown, >> yes. >> Robert Thomas, >> yes. >> Michael Orini, >> yes. >> Thank you. >> All right. >> Can I just ask a question? Is not
relevant. Any consideration given to um Bitcoin for payment? >> No. Well, no. Um and the reason is frankly the that's not done on a department by department level. Um, that would have to be a decision
made by the township as a whole as to what form of payment we accept. >> Thanks. >> One day, one day it'll happen. >> Um, but yeah, we do want to make sure we actually get paid and um, yeah, it's just I don't know. It's it's it's more
and more gaining acceptance and I see where you're going on that and I don't disagree. I think it's just uh yeah probably probably the last adopters will be government your municipal government um okay so work session new business so
this is when we're cooking with gas here so I want to I want to keep the momentum going especially during lean months where we don't have a lot of hearings so Mark has kindly tackled the next uh item up for bids on our master plan
re-examination and um what he did was um tackle the cluster subdivision and related ordinance updates. And if we can discuss and agree tonight, then we can approve them and forward them to council um so that they can introduce them and and do what we just did with the u other
um master plan recommendations. So I'll turn it over to Mark to just um give a overview of what what he has done. >> Okay. Yeah. So yeah, as the chairman said, again, this is in the master plan re-examination. where it basically points out the fact that we have five or
six um relatively similar provisions in our ordinance regarding um cluster subdivisions and then uh lot size averaging which is a similar concept. So the thought was to consolidate those to eliminate some inconsistencies and redundancies um and that's essentially
what this ordinance does. Just real quickly I just wanted to go through very briefly what what cluster subdivision is. So what this is, this is a map of obviously of the township and this is showing previous subdivisions that have
been done using cluster um you know cluster mechanisms. What it basically in a nutshell does is it doesn't provide allow extra density but allows the developer to let's say it's in an R40 zone which is basically one acre zone. They basically allow are allowed to
build at that 1acre density, but they're allowed to build their the actual lots uh you know at smaller sizes either 15,000 square feet or 20,000 square feet. And what that means is the development area gets reduced you know roughly in half. So that that means that
the the rest of the property can remain undeveloped. Um and the developers generally like this this approach you obviously I think the benefits to the township are obvious. Less of the land gets disturbed, more land gets preserved. developers generally like it because it's it's less infrastructure
costs, less road, less water sewer lines, less storm water to have to handle, etc. Um, so I'm just going to go through real quickly some of the what you're seeing here is in the purple. That's a zoning designation, meaning that is the um that's the area where uh
where it was developed. This happens to be our NRPC or natural resource preservation cluster option where these were this is in the R40 zone. These lots were were reduced to 15,000. That's in this purple. That's what we call an overlay zone. That's on our zoning map
so everybody knows that these are the requirements that apply to these homeowners moving forward. And the area in green are the areas of open space that resulted from this technique. Uh so I'll just point out a few. You see a whole bunch of them here in the middle of town. Uh Cedar Grove, Deont Lane,
etc. I mean this is Middle Bush Park where my cursor is. You know, that's a green area that was preserved. Um I think it was a wildflower ridge. You know that's the development area. The green is some of the open space that was preserved and you know going down
this more the middle southern area of town. This is again the blue is the areas that were developed and there were various parcels that were preserved. I also have a figure here that I prepared a while ago um kind of showing the same thing. You
can kind of see this is the development area. These are these are the preserve open space that resulted from that cluster technique. And then the southern area of town, you know, you can see and this is the area in here. These are the lots and the roads for the subdivision.
And all of these random township open space parcels again were permanently preserved using this. So I just wanted to show that to the board um so you understand the context of what this is. So what this ordinance does is we have two cluster provisions. One's called
natural resource preservation cluster and the other one's called agricultural cluster. Um they're two different sections of the ordinance. They're largely the same. Um so for that reason it figured it best to just let's get rid of the redundancy and just have one
ordinance that works mo almost if we've had 12 give or take subdivisions over the years that resulted in this. I think 11 of the 12 used a natural resource preservation cluster ordinance. So I would suggest let's just keep that one. It's working. It's resulted in all of
these developments. Um the agricultural cluster I think that was used to uh that was the wildflower ridge in those neighborhoods. Um again that ordinance is a lot in a lot of ways redundant so it's really not necessary. It also has this 2.3 density bonus which maybe at
the time when that was done that seemed to make more sense but I'm not so sure that's really in line with what the town would want to do moving forward. Uh so that reason I'm recommending that the agricultural cluster option come out. Natural resource preservation cluster option remain. There's some tweaks to
that ordinance that we're making to make certain things more clear. Um including the fact that that the preservation of agriculture is one of the things that can be used, you know, with in under this ordinance. Just to make that clear. It's not just natural resources. It can
be it can also be to preserve farmland. Um, so that's the the first part of the ordinance. And then the the second one, and this is a very similar concept called lot size averaging. um where in a nutshell if you have and I'm not really
sure we've really used this too much but I but I figure let's keep it because it is another potentially useful device where let's say you're at a a sixacre zone and they would do the same type uh exercise where they produce a yield map
to show how many lots they're entitled to under the zoning. Um, now conventional subdivision, every single lot would have to be at least six acres. But let's say they prove that they're entitled to five five lots under the under under the let's say it's the A
zone. They could come to the board and the board could approve a maybe one lot is eight acres because there's some wetlands that be can be preserved, but then the next lot could be three acres or four acres. you can average out those
sizes over the subdivision to produce some type of benefit. You know, obviously it would usually be similar to clustering. Save wetlands, save a row of trees, save some hedge row, farm field, things like that. Um it's it's so again,
it's already in the ordinance. It's already permitted in the RR3, RR5, and canal preservation zone. Um this ordinance would propose to also add it to the Azone. I don't see any reason if we're proposing it or already have been allowing it for decades in our other
similar rural residential zones RR3, RR5 and canal preservation. Why not why not permit it in the Azone? Um the provisions that are that are proposed for the Azone are the same as the canal preservation because those are both sixacre zones. Um so I basically just
put those provisions together for both the agriculture agricultural zone and canal preservation. And then just generally the ordinance, they're kind of all over the place in the ordinance. We put them in kind of one section so they're easy to find. Lot averaging. There's a lot of cross out. A lot of it
is reorganizing them and putting them in one section. Um, one more one more change is the so when this when a subdivision occurs using this. So the most recent one was
you know the rest of property and that one natur the natural resource preservation cluster option was used and that was uh you know again same thing about 60 well roughly half of the property I think it was 60% of the
property was developed 40% was preserved and they used um instead of again developing the entire property using you know half a or 40,000 square foot lots they reduced them down to uh 20,000 using the the books to so that the homes
are going to be sub built subject to the requirements of the R20 and then 40% of the property was preserved. So what happens is after after the subdivision is approved and filed, we go and then change the zoning map and that's what we did with these overlay zones. So that's
what this purple is. So, what one of the things we're going to do in in this ordinance is apply. I'll show you on do I have it? The zoning map would be changed to put the rest of property in this natural
resource protection clustion. Again, what that's saying is this would be subject to the R20 bulk standards. U that's how it was approved. um that's what that development is subject to and then making the necessary changes to the
bulk standards to reflect that. Um I mean and again that's the last thing is the canal preservation. There's some ch there's actually no changes to the substance of it for whatever reason when the the canal preservation zone um in our bulk schedules
uh there's no um garden shed setback requirement. So every other zone, if you're 200 square ft or less, you have a much uh smaller setback than if you're a larger accessory structure. Uh and in
the Azone, all the other similar zones, if you're a smaller garden shed, you only have to be five feet from the property line. For whatever reason, this was left. Right now, if you want to do a f a 10x10 shed, you need to be 150 ft from the rear yard or 50 ft from the
sideyard. This is inconsistent with all of the other similar zones. So, I'm simply recommending that they be similar to again the Azone RR3, RR5, which has that lesser uh 5 foot setback if it's a smaller garden shed. Um
and then there's other related but frankly non-s substantive changes. Um so that's basically the ordinance in a nutshell. Again, um it was provided to you. If you have any questions on it, I'm obviously here and happy to answer your questions.
So, one of the things when when Mark and I were working on this um before bringing it here to you, uh one of the one of the provisions was that a developer needed to uh put up an
escrow or something for maintenance of the open space that was that was deed uh to the township. Um, I think what we landed on is that we'll we'll keep that in but give the board flexibility to
wave that. And the reason is um here's here's two um diametrically opposed uh examples to go to Resta, right? There is no reason to ask that developer to bond for any maintenance of that property. It's not going to be a
park. It's passive open space. Um when that was approved, the board decided that the developer is willing to put the open space towards the wood side which is already preserved or or put it towards Middle Bush Village. The master
plan said historic villages shall have a green belt. So we decided as a board that the open space should go more towards because there there were no trees to preserve. It was an open field. It was farmed with corn or whatever by um I think Pusskisses
but just before that just a few years ago. So um no reason to like scare off somebody from preserving stuff by putting a burden on them that I don't I don't see that we would need. Now on the
opposite end think about Summerfields off of Weston Canal Road. There is a park there. Um, now I don't know that this was done under clustering. In fact, I don't think it was, but I'm using it as an example. We asked Summerfields to give us ball fields, soccer fields,
whatever is there off of Western Canal Road in that last section of of Summerfields, um, right next to like the Amazon warehouse and stuff is on Western Canal Road. In that case, if the town was going to say, "Oh, that's going to be a park or it's going to be Middle
Bush Park or something like that." then you might want to say, okay, you know, the town's going to have to put some effort into maintaining this unless it's deed off to an HOA or or or any other mechanism, then I wouldn't feel comfortable asking a developer to say,
okay, you know, we can we let's work work with us. What what can you provide for an ongoing um maintenance escrow? Um so I wanted to have the board to have the flexibility to have that or not have that. Um, initially I I suggested taking
it out entirely because I don't want to scare people off. Um, Mark made the suggestion that we keep it in but give the board flexibility. So, I like that. So, I think that was the only other point, Mark, that I wanted to mention. >> Yeah. Thank you. And one other thing, too, I just want to point this out
because it may look like it's a substantive change, but it's really not. So, all of these areas that I pointed out in purple that were um that are in that are in this NRPC overlay, um as I said before, they that the actual
development lots where you know the people's homes are, they're subject to the bulk standards of the R15 zone, which is already spelled out in the um bulk schedules. You can see you know 15,000 square feet and the different setbacks. Um, what I'm proposing is just
to change the name of that to the NRPC R15 option because that's essentially they use that option to go down to R15. So, uh, and then the rest of farm which is a little bit different again that used the R20 that's going to be R20
option. That's it. So, but but what this shows here is again the the black type mean the text means nothing is changing. Um it's just the name of that overlay zone and the zoning map will be updated just to again reflect that change in
nomenclature to reflect R15 versus the R20 option. Um nobody's setbacks for nobody's homes are changing or anything like that. Just to make it more clear to everybody. >> I have a question. Um,
let me ask you with the lot size averaging. Could a developer utilize this to make room for a detentionbased lot? In in effect,
he would be allowed to make the lots uh the building lots slightly smaller and thus maybe get one more building lot than he would have under normal procedures with all conforming lots.
I would say that and that's a good question and in fact some of the language that we that we added and I'll show you the the language um that's a really good question Ted and we um
we added so this paragraph C and in in the new language in red we talk about we want to have a yield map that shows you know basically what the developer is entitled to and it's not just the underlying zoning it basically says is it's you know without need for variances
or waiverss and it shall also take into account other appropriate and applicable factors that may affect the as of right development potential of the property including but not limited to storm water requirements easements environmental regulations such as flood planes and wetlands. So, you know, it's not going
to be a yield map may not be a, you know, a fully engineered plan, but it's it's going to be prepared by an engineer and it's going to have to and reviewed by me and our engineer and by you and, you know, you'll have to make the judgment, you know, with the input of
myself and the engineer that this is a legitimate um, you know, yield map that that the developer would be entitled to all of those things. they can't they're not going to be able to produce a yield map to you and just assume that there's no storm water. You know, they're going to
have to take some reasonable assumptions of what type of storm water management requirement would would apply and how much land would have to be dedicated to that. So, that would be part of that review and that was not in there. That's not in the current ordinance. That's this is some of the new language just to
make that more clear. Good. I'm >> glad I asked. >> I knew you'd have a good question, Ted. >> All right. So, uh, if there's no other questions, I would move that we, uh,
take this, um, we forward, um, these recommendations for clustering and lot size averaging to to council and most likely through the land use committee of council uh, for initial consideration. >> Second.
>> Theodore Chase, >> yes. >> Robert Lort, >> yes. >> Charles Brown, >> yes. >> Robert Thomas, >> yes. Michael Cena. >> Yes. And thank you, Mark, again for your work on this. And uh let's keep the momentum going. We we like the wheel of
fortune for master plan. Uh let's take a spin and see where we land next. >> Jeez. >> Um um move to open to the public for any general planning comments given that there are no hearings. >> I'll make a motion.
>> I I kind of did just second. Yeah. Um all in favor? All right. >> Um, meeting is open to the public. Seeing no public, well, seeing one public, but that does not want to necessarily make a comment. Um, move to close. >> Closed.
>> We'll take that as a second. And all in favor? >> I. >> Um, board comment section. Uh, just a reminder from me, June 28th, 2 p.m. Greekstown Reform Church. It's a Sunday to Sunday week from this Sunday. Um, if
you're interested in the DNR canal master plan presentation, um, I know that we have really recent information. Um, and and and Bob, don't go out to August or September. We won't remember, but I know that we now have
um, information out on the fireworks date. Um, the information has been posted on the Blenberg ban. So, if you want to cover any of that. >> So, the Blenberg, am I correct? No. Blowenberg. Lowenberg. >> Lowenberg. >> Blowenberg. >> Blowenberg. Okay. I shouldn't have even
said it at once. Um, they're playing Saturday, this evening, this coming Saturday, 6:00 to 7:00 p.m. Uh, 6:00 to 7:30. 6 to 7:30. All are welcomed. There will be like a ice cream truck uh there. There will not
be a food truck, but bring your blankets and chairs. And it's supposed to be an absolutely gorgeous Saturday. So, um you will you will have a you you'll have a nice time and they're a very uh patriotic and um all kinds of music.
You'll enjoy that. Fireworks are July 2nd. Um we have the New Jersey National Guard band that will play after the township band and that's supposed to be a nice a nice evening tune. Hope there's
no rain for that. Um, and the uh 250 tent will have a soldier there to look at um his weapons and um different things that folks can do. There'll be a signing. We're going to
start the signing of the uh of the Franklin Township Victory Town Plan B um flag this Saturday. So, it's a 4x8. Anybody there is more than welcome to come and sign the flag. Uh it'll be also July 2nd. It'll be on Franklin Day.
Also, um a new wrinkle that we're doing, not wrinkle, but uh July 8th, we're going to have a reading of the Declaration of Independence outside by the um gazebo.
And that'll be at 6:00. That's pretty much going to be throughout the entire country at six o'clock. That's about it. Thank you. >> And there's still tickets available for the >> Oh, the baseball game. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yeah. >> So, you you get those on the you can get those on the website, Franklin Township
website. >> We'll have those available both days, too. >> Yeah. 10 bucks. Good time. Um, so that's that's uh Anybody else have any board comments they want to make? No. If not, move to adjourn. >> Second. >> All in favor?
>> I. Um, I believe our next meeting is Let's Don't run away. Let's let Christine uh tell >> no more meetings.