Um Ted's here. We're going to go here. Uh so in accordance with the open public meetings act 1975 chapter 231 adequate notice of this regular meeting of the planning board of the township of Franklin 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. Um, Councilman Embarrison,
Jennifer Ragno, Charles Brown, all asked to be excused this evening. Theodore Chase >> here, >> Robert Lort here, >> Mark Dancy, >> Mahir Rafi here, >> Robert Thomas here, >> and Chairman Arcini >> here.
Okay. So, it doesn't look like we have any minutes. So, um resolution. So, uh you recall last week on the 14th, we um had the we passed the uh master plan re-examination for the BI zone. So, this
is the resolution memorializing same. So, I'll make a motion to approve. >> Second. >> Theodore Chase. >> Yes. >> Robert Lort. >> Yes. >> Mahir Rafi. >> Yes. >> Robert Thomas. Yes. >> Chairman Orsini. >> Yes.
>> We have a couple of discussion items tonight. And the first is Macedonia Church of God in Christ. And for that, the esteemed Peter Lanfred making a visit to us. >> Good evening, Mr. Chairman. >> Try now. Okay. Uh Peter Lanford
appearing on behalf of the applicant. Uh the reason I'm here tonight was uh to request relief of condition 3II in the resolution of approval which had language in it which I believe never should have been in the resolution to
begin with. Uh if the board recalls this application lasted over four years uh over numerous meetings. Uh I think we had Mr. Clark at some of those meetings, Mr. Vinola at some of those meetings and
uh actually my church representative passed away, my engineer retired. So there was a litany of things but the bottom line is when we started the hearing uh we were going to uh get parking from PNC Bank. Uh during that
discussion, the letter we got from PNC Bank said we can only uh or that that the agreement was terminable by either side within 30 days. Mr. Clark ruled that the board really shouldn't consider that because it's it's not a permanent agreement and I
think m you Mr. Orsini went on record and said the same thing. We then amended the plan, made the church smaller, removed seating and then had parking on site and on the RPM site. Somehow the language of getting an agreement with
PNC Bank worked its way back into the resolution. Should never have been. And so uh and quite frankly in reviewing the resolution, I missed it. Uh so I'm just asking the board for relief of a condition to remove that requirement.
We're just about at the finish line on this and I need to have that removed. Thank you. >> Thanks, Peter. Good. Yes, I I don't have an issue with it. Uh based upon the changes in the application, uh I think the board came
to the conclusion it wasn't needed, but it wasn't expressed that way. Okay. And it did find its way into the resolution. Pete did miss it, but let's correct it. And as long as the board is comfortable that there is sufficient parking. >> Yeah. I mean, my recollection is exactly
as what Pete said that, you know, we we did not believe that something like that could be, you know, that could be mutually um mutually walked away from by either the applicant or PNC Bank was not something the board could rely on for
permanent solution for parking. Um and then if you recall the church had a seating area uh I believe in the second floor which was then taken out uh resulting in far less parking because there is far less seating and that was
satisfied with what they had on site street parking and RPM >> right >> so I mean I'm fine with that I don't think we we should rely on that for parking and the applicant had demonstrated that they did not need it for such so um I I would I would make a
motion for relief of that condition for the agreement with PNC Bank for parking. >> Second. >> Theodore Chase. >> Yes. >> Robert Lort. >> Yes. >> Mah Rafi. >> Yes. >> Robert Thomas. >> Yes. >> Chairman Rini.
>> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Easy peasy. All right. Uh 58 Drive. >> That's mine also, Mr. Chairman. Peter Lford. Uh this was an approval that uh uh was granted to expand what used to be
the convention center on Davidson Avenue which is being used as a warehouse. It was a 71,000 ft uh uh structure. Uh we are asking for an extension of the approval. We actually have complied with everything. The plans are are basically done and ready to go.
We just have not been able to start the building because we're still working on financing and also there was for a short period of time no need for the expansion, but it appears it's going to go forward now. So, we're asking uh for a one-year extension. Actually, if the board is so inclined, I wouldn't mind a
two-year extension from December of 2025 when it expired. >> Um, >> but I'll be happy to come back because I know you guys miss me. >> So, wait, when one year would be to when? December 20 26. Yeah. >> Yeah. Let's go one at a time. I I like
it that way. Gives me gives us the board some control to see, you know, if something's going a miss that we hear it again. So, I'll give you till um how about December 31st, 2026. >> That would work. >> Give me a second on that one.
>> Second. >> Theodore Chase. >> Yes. Robert Lort. >> Yes. >> Mahir Rafi. >> Yes. >> Robert Thomas. Yes, >> Chairman Rini. >> Yes. >> Thank you very much. Have a good evening. >> You too, Peter. Be well. Um,
>> okay. Ordinances for the um fair share affordable housing. We have five. I've been told we have to move and vote on each of these separately. And Mark, I don't know if you have anything to say, but >> just uh just a little bit. Um well, first before we move to the ordinances,
I um Vince Dominac is here. um because Vince uh along with myself and working with our consultant um had been working on the affordable housing plan for a while now. So Vince uh is here in case there are any detailed questions um between the two of us uh we could answer
them. U but I also want to take the opportunity to alert the board that uh Vince Dominac uh is retiring. Um for the board members that have been here for a long time, you'll recall that Vince was the longtime senior zoning officer and then for the last decade or more has
been the uh township's economic development coordinator, uh business advocate um lays on to the um uh historic commission and probably about 15 other hats. So for those of us who have worked with Vince for a long time, you know
he's a man of many skills and talents and abilities. So, he's going to be greatly missed uh here at the township. So, we're all mourning his loss, his his pending loss. >> Did Lamford invite you to a pool party and that's why you had to go down?
>> I'm actually he's leaving uh on Friday because he has to be at the zoning board tomorrow. I'm on the same flight to my house as >> I knew there was I knew there was it was too coincident. So with respect to the ordinances um so it just overall process um as the board
recalls um uh you prepared a fair share and adopted a fair share plan to meet the the township's fourth round obligation. Um that plan went to the state program. There was a mediation session. Uh we did have a number of objectors meaning developers who wanted
to be included. Um and that would have involved uh a lot of additional projects that uh the township was uh did not want to include in our plan. We were successful in um keeping those out of our plan. The one uh basically or in
other words, we were successful in proving to the program that our our plan was um uh was a good plan. Uh the one one additional project and that's in uh in the the ordinance here is Dumbar Homes. Um that's the uh it's on Route
27. Um it's right now it's an abandoned uh or not abandoned but uh shopping center in very bad shape. Uh the proposal uh basically the judge kind of insisted that we include that site. Um it's uh eight units to the acre, total
of 55 units uh and 20% affordable. Um so after all of that, we we did add one more um small project to the plan. Otherwise, all of the ordinances are basically what the board had approved in the fair share plan back in 2025
in ordinance form. >> Thank you, Mark. Any any questions the board uh especially with regard to Dunar? any I don't have any questions. I mean um I if you saw the list of objectors it's u
about a thousand over a thousand units that we were successful in demonstrating that we did not need to include to um make our fair share uh obligation compliant. uh it was compliant when we
sent it to the judge and like Mark said they insisted in this other site which actually is is a good site to have um so um and gets rid of a couple of strip malls that are um I don't know under you say underutilized but um you know um
actually actually is a is a positive so um happy to include them but that's 55 extra units and of course the units that we have in excess okay carry over to the next 10 plan when we we do that. So 2035 or
whatever. So um so it's not like we don't get credit for them. >> And the one statement I'll make because again what what this officially is that the the council has introduced these ordinances. It goes to the planning board to determine whether it's these ordinances are inconsistent with the
master plan. Um I mean four of them again as I stated were in the fair share plan and this would implement those. So clearly th those are consistent and Dunbar is um as as the chairman just said is is an approp is an appropriate site for affordable housing. It's
basically surrounded by and adjoins another cluster residential zone. So it's really going to be kind of a continuation of an existing apartment complex at the same density. So uh you know for those reasons it's certainly not inconsistent with the master plan. And so that's what we're ruling today or
that's what we're motioning today that these ordinances are consistent with the master plan obviously. >> Or the flip of that is they're not inconsistent. >> Not in Yeah. >> And Ted has a question. >> Well, how many of those units are affordable? Is that 55 affordable units
or 55 of which 11 are affordable? >> It's so yeah, Dunar is the is the one project that the rest of them if you recall were either 50% or 100%. uh Dunar at 55 units is it is your typical 20% affordable so it's 11 affordable units
44 market >> we were trying to get at least 25% >> yeah and then and they and they wanted I think at one point up to 16 units to the acre and they're getting eight >> which is our standard cluster residential zone Well,
>> any other questions from the board? All right. So, we'll take these in order. So, um make a motion for ordinance 4489-26 U establishing an inclusionary zone district. Is it MFIZ? Oh, yeah.
Inclusionary zone-4. uh that this is cons is consistent or not inconsistent uh with the master plan. >> A second. >> Theodore Chase. >> Yes. >> Robert Lort, >> yes. >> Mahir Rafi,
>> yes. >> Robert Thomas, >> yes. >> Chairman Rini, >> yes. >> Ordinance 4490-26 to establish an inclusionary zoning district MFIZ-2 is consistent with the master plan.
>> Second. Theodore Chase. >> Yes. >> Robert Lort, >> yes. >> Mahir Rafi, >> yes. >> Robert Thomas, >> yes. >> Chairmani, >> yes. Ordinance 4491-26 establishing an inclusionary zone
district MFIZ-1 is consistent with the master plan. >> Second. >> Theodore Chase. Yeah. Robert Lort. Yes. Mah Rafi. >> Yes. Robert Thomas. >> Yes. >> Chairman Orsini.
>> Yes. Ordinance 4492-26 establishes an inclusionary zoning district MFIZ-5 consistent with the master plan. >> Second. >> Vodor Chase. >> Yes. >> Robert Lort. >> Yes. >> Mahir Rafi. >> Yes.
>> Robert Thomas. >> Yes. >> Chairman Orcsini. >> Yes. And last but not least, ordinance 4493-26 designating an area in need of redevelopment. This would be for the Franklin Boulevard site. >> Second. >> Theodore Chase. >> Yes.
>> Robert Lort. >> Yes. >> Mahir Rafi. >> Yes. >> Robert Thomas. >> Yes. >> Chairman Rini. >> Yes. >> All right. We just took care of what took what a year to do. So
goes that quick in a vote. Um move to open the meeting for general planning comment from the public. Second. >> All in favor? I. >> Anybody with general planning comments? >> Seeing no takers, move to close.
>> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> Okay. Uh, one hearing tonight and then we'll talk a little bit about um um the master plan uh re-examination. So, Odin Dune, um this is is not we're not going to be voting on this tonight. So, before
we actually uh before you start, Tim, let's take care of the logistics. Um we had you had um been here two weeks ago. We let the public know that you were going to be here tonight. Um and now we if you don't want to have to notice
again, we can let the public who is would be here tonight if they were interested. But um to not have to notice again where date we're carrying um we're not caring but what date we're next hearing. >> Okay. So Odin Dun uh docket number PLN2400007
will be carried to March 4th at 7:30 p.m. at 475 Damont Lane in the council chambers. And Tim has uh offered to provide me an extension letter until the end of March. >> Uh until the end of March, that would be
>> end of March. Okay. So March 31st, 2026. And and just to state to be clear, if anybody is here for that application, we will be having a discussion on that tonight. It just won't go to a vote. >> Correct. >> And that gives us a thank you for the buffer for the end of March just in case there's any snowstorms or anything. Uh
because it looks like it's going to be that kind of winter. Anyway, um with that, um so we're here and I think you're going to present your planner and your tree expert. So, um yeah, turn it around. >> Yes. Uh thank you members of the board, board professionals. My name is Tim Arch, uh, attorney from Bob Smith and
Associates here tonight uh, representing uh, Odin Dunn. Um, as the chairman did indicate, we were here about two weeks ago. We had, uh, presented, uh, sort of our initial proposal. Uh, got some feedback from the board. Um, and I think the majority of that feedback or I think the the overwhelming amount of that
feedback was to meet with uh, your township professionals uh, to try to craft a way to preserve more trees uh, on the site. And so uh uh thankfully your your professionals uh Mark and Darren were gracious enough to meet with us uh on very short notice after that
meeting uh to discuss uh ways to modify and amend the plan in order to uh provide additional uh tree preservation. And so we do have an exhibit I believe which is going to be marked exhibit A3 uh tonight that was prepared by Menllo Engineering. Uh this exhibit was the
result of the uh the meeting that we had with uh with your professionals. Um I do understand uh that uh this is an exhibit. Uh we we still we are going to follow up with this. Menlo is going to follow up with this with a full grading plan uh for your professionals to review
to make sure that uh the buffers that we're talking about here are um uh work. Uh but we believe that uh we believe that it will work. Um and uh we actually are confident that this might actually improve our storm water as well, our storm water design in doing this. Um
>> Tim, before you go any further, this hasn't been entered into the record formally, has it? >> Uh this has not yet. This is the first time that we are that we are uh >> uh showing we lay the foundation to admit it. >> Um I can I I'll I'll do that through the uh um our tree expert uh Matt Wyel as
his uh uh his uh information was used to uh to prepare this. It was prepared by Menllo Engineering. >> All right, fine. >> And we're calling it A3. Yeah. Uh, if I can ask our tree uh expert or arborist, Mr. Matthew Wyel, to come on up.
>> Raise your right hand. Soly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth shall help you God. >> I do. >> Name and address for the record, please. >> My name is Matthew Wyel. I live at uh 115 Blue Hill Avenue in Fairlaw, New Jersey. >> Can you spell your last name, please?
Sure. We ei >> Thank you. Let's qualify him. >> Certainly. Uh Mr. Wibley, if you please if you can go through your uh your credentials as a as an arborist. >> Yes. Um so I'm a ISA, it's International Society of Aborulture Certified Arborist
and Risk Assessment Qualified Arborist. I'm a registered consulting arborist through the American Society of Consulting Arborists and I'm a licensed tree expert through the state of New Jersey. qualify. >> Thank you. Uh so Matt, you uh conducted a site survey uh and you compiled a
report uh concerning this property uh and the trees that are on it, correct? >> Yes. >> Okay. And uh can you explain uh just briefly what you did to generate your report? >> Um yes. So I I went out to the property over a couple of days. Um
I put a numerical tag on every tree 16 inches and larger collected uh information on the species, diameter, condition. Um, as well I kind of did a general assessment of the wooded areas within the property. Kind of get an idea of what the species composition for, you know, smaller trees within those areas
included and then kind of give a summary report that summarized the findings of the inventory and um my opinion on the wooded areas as well. >> Okay. And in that report, you identified and tagged 140 trees that were over 16 in 16inch in caliber or over. Correct.
>> That's correct. In addition to that though, you also identified a lot of uh areas of uh tree clusters and and plants that uh were less than 16 inch in caliber and you sort of uh define those areas in your report as well. Correct. >> That's correct.
>> Okay. Um and of those 140 trees you identified uh 12.9 were in such a poor condition that in your opinion they should be removed. Was that correct? >> Correct. So those were trees either standing dead trees or trees with very little foliage remaining or significant
like decay and you know be a risk issue if they were to remain. >> Okay. An additional 12.1 of those were invasive and your opinion was that those should also be removed because they're invasive species. Correct. >> Correct. >> Okay. Uh and of those uh of those 140 trees 16 and above um only four of those
you found to be in good condition based on your opinion. Correct. >> Yes. I mean, but most um it's rare to find it's a unmaintained wooded area, so I don't expect to find a lot of trees in good condition there. Um most were fair condition. >> You I think you indicate Yeah. The the majority were in fair condition. And can
you tell us a little bit about do you know any of the background of the property and is that consistent with sort of the conditions of the trees that you found there? >> Um yeah. So there's existing residential property kind of in the front quarter of the property, front third of the
property. Then beyond that, um there was a couple of areas that were former woodland, a former farmland that had been regenerating over time. Um one that appears to be a little bit older than the other. Um so there was a significant number of smaller trees in those areas
and then kind of the buff around the perimeter and there was one wind row between the two uh farm plots that had the most of the larger trees there. >> Okay. So, based on your uh knowledge of of it being former farmland that had been cleared, uh is it safe to say that
a lot of the uh a lot of the growth or I guess older growth uh was located around the perimeters of the of the property? >> Yes. Correct. Yes. >> Okay. Um so now you uh you provided all that information to Menllo Engineering and they uh used that to uh help uh
establish a um uh to put a plot plan together, correct? >> Yes. Yes. And they partly use that information in order to uh to uh come up with this exhibit which is labeled as exhibit A3 which I only Oh, okay. For some reason I don't see it on that screen. I see it on that screen. Um and
so do you recognize this as being an aerial of the property that you surveyed uh with a uh rendering superimposed on it? >> Yes. >> Okay. Uh and you're familiar with this property. It's the same one that you surveyed, correct? >> Yes. >> Okay. And so we would enter this in as A3. And you're aware that Menllo Engineering prepared this. You had an
opportunity to review it. Correct. Yes. Yes. Okay. Um, and now >> hold on. Let let me ask a question. >> You've studied this exhibit. >> Yeah. Yes. I mean, studied and spend like hours studying, but yes, I looked at and reviewed it.
>> Is it consistent with the findings that you observed in the field? >> Well, I mean, this rendering shows kind of what's going to happen ideally after it's developed and the new trees that aren't there now. Um, >> the aerial underneath >> the aerial. Yes. Is that consistent with
the with the uh with the with the property as you observed it? >> Correct. Yes. >> Well, I I think what Mr. Clark may be referring to is that it's your your superimposition of the subdivision over the aerial renders the aerial underneath
the sub subdivision, you know, illegible. So, I mean, you may want to go back to your exhibit of existing conditions before you show that. I think that's what >> Yeah, that's where I'm going. The the other issue I have is the person who prepared the exhibit is not here to
testify and that's a little on the unusual side. >> Uh I can tell you we will have a representative from Menllo Engineering who will be here on March 4th. They were not able to be here tonight. Um again it's a it's a rendering over top of the the site as it is. >> All right. Then here's what we can do.
Why don't we mark it for identification tonight? You'll formally move it. >> We'll formally move it in on March on March 4. >> Certainly we can do that. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Uh so Matt, if you can uh look at the exhibit that's marked A3 uh just for identification purposes at this time. Um
do you recall that the original plan that we had uh that we had shown at the last time that we were here uh had a 15 ft buffer around the perimeter of the property? Is that correct? >> Yes. >> Okay. And on this exhibit, uh, uh, after having conversations with the township
professionals, that buffer along the north and the south, uh, portion of that property has been increased to a 40ft buffer. Is that correct? >> Yes. >> Okay. And in addition to that, the buffer on the western side of the perimeter has been increased uh to a uh
I believe it is a 25- ft buffer with the exception of that middle area that has a bump out of additional uh trees that are being preserved. Correct. >> Correct. Yes. >> Okay. And so, uh, just in your opinion, as a, uh, as an arborist, and I guess
this is probably even just a lay opinion, that's significantly more, uh, trees that are being preserved, uh, than, uh, than what were with the original proposal. Correct. >> Yes. >> Okay. Um, I have no further direct questions uh, of Mr. Wyel, but I'm
certainly happy to answer any uh, any questions that the board may have. >> Yeah. So, I have a few. So, um, just for the record, when did you do your survey? You said mentioned canopy, so it had to have been during the growing season. The date, >> uh, no, it was done in December 12th and 15th. Um, no, I often do inventories
during the dormant season, but when I said canopy, yes, but I just meant you can see dead wood and buds and things in the canopy. >> Okay. Because I want the board to understand that maybe what you saw obviously that trees don't have leaves on them in December. Um, that that you
know um it's it's harder to tell. Um, I think you you I know I do know what you're saying. I used to be chair of the sheet tree commission in this town for years. So, um, I I know what you mean in terms of looking at deadwood, but I also want the board to understand that um, it was not with foliage on there.
>> Um, in your opinion on this site, what is the most what what are the most high value uh areas that you would recommend in your professional opinion to preserve? Um so the buffer
around the edge is where um more of the large more mature trees are. Um there's an interior section where there was I guess old um guess the woman who lived own the house was like a professor and she had like um
some extra buildings behind I don't know what they're called extra buildings behind her house that kind of run down now. There's a lot of invasives growing through there. So that was kind of the the low value area. In addition, there was one um wind row through the middle kind of of the two former farmland properties
that had a decent number of large trees as well. >> Okay. Um the heavily wooded stand of trees towards the rear of the property. Um is the what what would you be what would your assessment of that be?
>> Um that one was the among the younger sections. It was a lot of a black cherry. I believe and uh some eastern red cedar which are common early successional species for this area. Um a lot of those trees were I'd say off top of my head between like six
and eight inches in diameter high density of trees but smaller trees generally fair condition. M so basically early to mid successional growth cedars and these black cherries and then if left to its own devices um would that
regenerate into habitat forest that would be worth preserving would eventually later successional species like oaks, maples, sweet gums, etc. um ultimately um take that site over if left undisturbed.
>> That's what you would expect to happen. Sure. Um, with the number of invasives, there's chance some of those would I'm sure some of those would get in and take over a little bit, but yeah, the expectation would be that over time you'd see a more typical oak maple woodland. >> Thank you.
>> Other questions from the board, >> Ted? You're environmental commission, so it's not what I was hoping for. What were you hoping for? >> I was hoping to cluster the house. I was
hoping to cluster the houses somewhat to leave uh the back part of the property from what in the Mr. Wel's report, written
report was identified as a form of windbreak from and that was where there were some uh big trees in the middle from there to the back of the property would be left in its present state. Or
in fact, you could plant oak, maple, etc. and remove some of the young cherry trees that are there and develop a a real natural state bit of woodland there
while still retaining the same number of houses in in the property. But I shared that with the engineer at the end of the the after the last hearing.
And I might ask uh of the trees of over 15 in uh how many of them would be in the the uh expanded uh
buffer along the edges of the property. Um I I believe um last time the gentleman testified there'd be like 42 trees in the old plan. Presently there's I counted 51 trees 16 in larger in this plan. But of course there's numerous you
know between 4 in and 16 in probably two to three times as many trees. Um but in terms of 16 and larger I believe the current number is 51 trees. >> So 10 more >> nine. Yeah, I'm not sure. Yeah, I think
it was nine nine 20% more approximately, >> right? But that only that you're only talking about trees that are 16 caliber and larger. You're not talking about >> Yeah, that's what I was talking about. >> And the brush the other stuff that's there, right? >> Um, one thing that I will just uh state to to respond to this is is that I know
that the board's preference would be to utilize the the cluster option. I know that we had an extensive conversation about that at the last meeting and I believe the you know I believe the board chair uh indicated that the board cannot mandate a cluster uh the cluster um uh
methodology to be to be utilized because this is a permitted um uh conforming uh subdivision use for the R40 zone. Uh and so when we did discuss with your professionals if the cluster option is not being implemented uh which is which
is what we're presenting here is not to implement that cluster option the the ordinances mandate that uh that you know reasonable efforts be made to try to preserve as many trees as practicable. Um, and I think that uh, again, one of the one of the discussions that we had
with your professionals was that in their opinion, and I don't want to speak for them, I'll certainly defer to them, but that the perimeter trees were really the ones that were the most uh, important both for uh, being able to preserve a large number of trees and a large density of trees, but also to
preserve uh, the visual uh, impact and to lessen any sort of visual impact on surrounding areas. Uh, and so, you know, I'll certainly defer to uh to your professionals. Um, but, um, I I it was quite frankly their suggestion was a
40-foot buffer, I believe, would fulfill that the, um, spirit of that ordinance. Um, and so that's what we're trying to present to you today. And you know I I should also add that you know one of the one of the things that supports clustering is um the
development ordinance in chapter 222 trees says that that you know to the greatest extent possible trees should be preserved and they can be with with a cluster option um with the same yield of lots because that's what conservation
subdivision design is supposed to do. So it's not mutually exclusive that the development could yield 14 lots >> and still preserve more trees. So um I also I also want to make that clear. Um other than the fact that yes it is a
byite development and that it's R40 uh use and an R40 zone. >> Um where in your replanting plan? All right. So you you've done your tree survey. You know how many trees you're going to
remove. you know how many trees you're going to replant on site and the difference you pay into the shade tree fund at $300 a tree. Um where in your if you can point out on your exhibit to the board um where there is opportunities to either enhance the buffer around the
site or interior to the site I notice you have a lot of lot of trees kind of between each of the houses. Um it's not just it doesn't look to be just your typical um you know you have you obviously have your street trees right that lined up like good little soldiers
um and but the rest of the lots you also have trees on. Are those trees you actually going to plant on those lots or those trees that are going to be preserved or they mix? >> Um those are all mean newly planted trees. So there's no preserved trees within between buildings between
existing buildings. >> Okay. So that th that would be I guess what I'm going to say maybe this is more to you Tim you represent that that that that graphic is a faith of like accurately
depicts the spirit of your replanting plan. Yes. And and when Menllo when Menllo is here on uh on the 4th, we can go into greater detail of that, but that is uh that is their generated plan B their re replanting plan. So that is not just a artistic rendering of what we
think is going to be that's actually plotted. Uh in addition to that, there is a note on the plans that uh we would also agree to if there's any sparse areas within that uh within that for uh the 40ft buffer area, we would certainly work with the township to also do
supplemental plantings as well in order to bulk up any sparse areas that happen to be in there in order to make sure that it is a a full a fully fleshed out uh buffer area. So there is a note on the plan. We don't have any specific plottings of where that would be, but we're happy to continue to work with the township to find if there are any areas
where again there need to be possibly trees removed because they're in poor health and trees replaced. We would certainly agree to do that. >> Um and and remind the board um maybe maybe just remind me what what your what your dimensions is your buffer the same
40 all the way around on both sides or is did you mention different one? Uh it's it's on the north and the south it's a uh it's a 40ft buffer. On the west side there it is a um >> 25 ft buffer and that's just because of how the the lot is. We can't uh we can't
cut into uh too far into where the home is. But that's why we added the additional part there on the end of the culde-sac that is being preserved that that sort of juts out there. So you still maintain that there is some yard for uh those two uh I'm going to call them corner lots at the end of the
culde-sac. Uh but we are still again as as much as practicable keeping uh the uh the bulk of the forest in there between those homes. >> That's all I have. I know Ted, you give him said as
>> are you are you will Matt be back for the 18th or for the what or whenever? Yeah. uh if the board uh we can arrange to have him back if the board uh >> I'm just in case we have because I mean if you're you're going to have your menlo engineering and I think those are the really two most I don't know what
other witnesses you would have other than the planner and and Matt >> yeah and we would like to we quite frankly would like to put the planner on tonight really the only testimony that goes directly I think towards any variance relief that we're requesting is the two minor bulk variances for the
frontage. So, I want to make sure that that is on the record just so that it doesn't get overlooked because I know that that isn't uh quite frankly, I think last time you guys said that you had no issues with those bulk variances, but just for the sake of the record, I want to make sure that we have the justifications on there for it. >> Um, >> yeah, let's let's go ahead and and and
do that. We we call your planner. >> Mr. Chairman, just a question of uh I guess process. Um, so the plan is to come back March 4th, right? Is is that going are you going to have revised uh plans? >> Yes. So uh so in the meantime, what our
intent is is to have Menllo uh uh provide fully fleshed out design plans so that you yourself and uh and Darren can review those. Uh those would include you know grading plans uh anything else more detailed and then we would certainly like to have your feedback on
those and any sort of comments so that we can address those directly uh to the board on March 4th. So that is the that would be the intent. >> Okay. Uh yeah, and the reason I asked that is that um and Darren, please feel free to uh add anything else, but um I mean certainly I think the chairman was
speaking to this. I mean certainly we need to see you know the actual trees plotted on this exhibit so that we can compare it to the 40ft buffer that you're proposing if there are some additional trees that could be included by having it go, you know, >> maybe expanded here and there a little
bit. You know, may maybe it's missing a little bit if it goes to 45 feet in some places. Maybe we hit another little stand of trees. Um, I'm sure Darren is going to need to see obviously the storm water utilities and the grading and all of that stuff to see how this would be accomplished. Um, I just spoke for you
there, Darren, but anything else that uh >> want to bring up? >> I'd agree. Something I wanted to say >> because another rendering like this would be helpful once the final tree plots are figured out because a lot of the trees in the rear yards right now are going to be affected by drainage and grading. >> And I I would say at this point, I know
you can't show it on the planet. It's unknown, but once you get to that point, you should show the final concept to the or final rendering to the board once the final engineering is done. >> Yeah, we can certainly have Medllo put that together. Again, this was this was we had two weeks to come back and we we wanted to show that we were making, you
know, the every effort we could to to coordinate with your professionals and to uh and to really, you know, show you that we're making progress on it. The reason that we expect that it's not going to go to a vote tonight is because it's an ongoing >> it's an ongoing process. And then just
just to clarify a little bit the discussion that we had um with the applicant uh and their professionals um you know I I I I think that um this is is is it's definitely preserving
a lot more trees uh around the around the perimeter a lot more than was originally proposed. Um I I don't want to have the board think that though and I don't think Timmy you were suggesting this but you know that this that Darren and I were saying if you do 40 feet you're going to be good. No,
>> you know the discussion was >> um this is the 40 the 40,000 foot lots is what the developer wants to build. You know per the zoning, you know, understanding that is the zoning and they have a certain development concept in mind with with the homes and the
yards and things like that. And then keeping in mind the the the need for drainage and grading, um the 40 feet based on all those different parameters, the 40 ft seemed like a feasible um
solution to increase the trees. I I think maybe that's and if Darren is do you think that is a fair assessment of kind of our position at that meeting? that is and also with what we're showing with the buffers too. It it keeps the existing buffers in place, especially where the basin is. That was a top that
we spoke about to where the house is very nicely landscaped now. And the original plan was calling for removal of all of the uh vegetation on that side and that resident's home would have been exposed to a infiltration basin where now they did pull it back to 40 ft. Keep
that existing buffer in place. I just have a quick request when you come back is that this plan that we see the rendering of is is the revised >> one. >> Correct. >> Could you also uh at the next hearing
bring back the original? >> Yes. >> So we have a comparison to look at side by side. >> Absolutely. I I can tell you the buffers are significantly less in that original one. Can you uh next time you come a real
aerial shot? Do we have that? >> Well, we have an existing I believe A1 was the existing conditions the ex the aerial of the >> Do we have that up now? >> I don't know. >> Do you have an aerial shot? I think we have the I think that was A1 that was
marked. >> That's it. Yeah, >> if we don't have it tonight, we'll certainly have it on uh on the 4th. >> Uh that is so that that's from the report that we submitted. So that is the uh the tree plotting, but that is uh superimposed over an aerial of the existing site.
>> Thank you. I think I think just reading the two um comments that you just received from the board members. I think just a clean aerial with the limit of disturbance so they can see without the improvements shown on the improvement. I think the chairman said and a few board
members the exhibit that you're showing we understand why you're doing it because it's showing the road and the homes and all that stuff but it's obscuring you know the rest of the trees. So I think if it's just the existing, you know, uh Google or whatever aerial that you use with the
limit of disturbance so the board can see the trees that are staying and and the trees that frankly will be removed. >> We can certainly do that. >> Yep. >> All right. So, Yang go ahead and Tim and and move swear in your planner and um
finish you guys out. >> Allison, raise your right hand, please. So, swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. So, I hope you got it. >> I do. >> Name and address, please. >> Allison Coffin with work out of your life. >> It is now.
It's Allison Coffin. C O FF I N. Uh I work for James W. Higgins Associates. We're located at 14 Tilton Drive, Ocean Township, New Jersey. I am a licensed professional planner in the state of New Jersey, certified by the American Institute of Certified Planners. >> I don't believe I appeared in front of
>> I don't think we need to qualify. >> Uh Allison, if you can please uh take us through your uh assessment of the two uh bulk variances that we are requesting for the uh for the frontage of those two corner lots. Sure. Uh, the subdivision
is substantially conforming with the requirements of the R40 zone, but variance relief is requested for the frontage of the two corner lots. Um, there's also technically variance relief required for the impervious coverage of the proposed lot that serves as the private roadway, but this is a technical
variance as the ordinance doesn't intend for impervious coverage to cover roadways. Uh, so I'm going to focus on those two corner lot frontage variances. Now, this type of variance relief is bulk or C variances. And there's two tests within the municipal land use law for this type of variance. The first is
commonly known as a hardship variance, and it's appropriate when a lot's unique shape, topographic conditions, or pre-existing legal structures create a situation where the strict application of the ordinance results in hardship. Uh, the second standard is C2 variance is sometimes called a flexible C
variance. It's justified when the purposes of the municipal land use law are advanced by the deviation of the ordinance requirements and the benefits of that deviation outweigh the detriments. It's my opinion that these variances for the lot frontage could be granted under both the C1 hardship and
the C2 standard. So looking first at it through the hardship lens, the frontage variances are driven by the existing width of the lot which is 451 feet and the angle at the frontage of the lot. uh with the required 200 foot frontage, the
50 foot right ofway for the road and the curb returns needed at the intersection, it is not possible for conforming lot frontages uh for these corner lots to be provided. The lots themselves are in all other ways conforming to the zone. The proposed variances here advance the
purposes of the municipal land use law. uh booking to again through the C2 variance. The variances advance the purposes of the municipal land use law with regard to purpose A promoting the public health, safety, morals and general welfare. Purpose C providing adequate light, air and open space.
Purpose E promoting an the establishment of appropriate population densities and concentrations that will contribute to the well-being of persons, neighborhoods, communities, regions, and preservations of the environment. This is in my opinion probably the most significant purpose being advanced by
these variances as the appropriate subdivision of this lot uh consistent with the R40 standards would not be permissible without some variance relief. And then there's purpose G providing sufficient space in an appropriate location for residential use. The benefit of the variances for
those frontages are primarily to allow the subdivision of the site in a manner which provides for that appropriate and permitted population density. Uh, in my opinion, there's no detriment to these variances. Though these two lots require frontage variances, the lots meet all other requirements for the zone. One
possible detriment that could result from lots that lack the required frontage is the creations of driveways that are spaced closer together. Uh, so they're more frequently than intended, but with this subdivision, there is no direct access from these lots to Cedar Grove Road, uh, which is accessed only
by the proposed private road. So despite the variances for lot frontage, there is only a single access point to this entire subdivision proposed to that road. The lots that are proposed have significant landscaping along Cedar Grove frontage. So there's no harm to the visual character of the area that
would result from the variances. Uh it's also my opinion that this variance request does not impair the intent and purpose of your master plan and zoning ordinance as the use and density is permitted and appropriate uh and therefore it advances the larger intent of your master plan and zoning
ordinance. >> Thank you, Miss Coffin. You're welcome. >> She's available for any questions of the board. >> So the two lots in question are the lots at the top across from the uh >> detention basin. One is the the tension
basin itself and the other is the lot to the north of it. >> It's the frontage along Cedar Grove Lane. Correct. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> So not the frontage along the private road. Wow. >> No, that is complete.
>> And so what is the normal frontage on Cedar Grove Lane? It would be what? >> 200 feet. >> 200. And what are you asking for? Um, with the curb returns, the one lot is uh 133 ft. That's the one to the north,
the single family lot, and the storm water basin is 167 ft. >> Is that's >> I believe so. >> Yes. >> Would the need for variance be the same or as great? Um
assuming that you would not I mean I I think we mentioned this before so hopefully this is not a shaw. Uh if we didn't do fancy gate house or anything like that um would you if it was just a road would it make any difference? >> I I did look at that because again we
have 451 ft. So 200 feet and 200 feet 50 feet. Um but the gate house does not expand that 50 ft. It's included within the 50ft right ofway. So its presence there does not increase the width of the roadway or the curb returns that are needed. >> So your total frontage on Cedar Grove is
how much? >> 451 ft. >> So what does it math? >> The curb returns. So you have a 50 foot right of way and then it flares out as you get to the road and that's where you lose the 200 foot of frontage >> because like you said 200 250 and you
should be barely your foot to spare but >> which is why this is you know a little bit of a hardship. All right. >> But do you have a separation of two lanes there? I mean,
and in it looks as if you you have two different lanes going in and something in the middle between them. Uh, I don't know if it's possible to pull up the subdivision and show
Oh, sure. It was moved in sheet six shows how those lanes fit within the 50ft right ofway. So, if it was one lane, the lots would not change. You can see how those those lanes are
with within the the lot line of the road. I mean there is there is an alter. So I mean I'm just going to talk talk about it from the the township's point of view, right? You make a case for a C1, I don't know
about that. a C2 maybe. But you look at from the township's point of view, I could say I could say that, you know, you probably could get your lots the way they are. Um, if you just eliminated a lot, um, obviously you want maximum density, but you would eliminate that
that one lot. Um, you could you could have everything conforming. >> No, it would still be less than 200 feet on that frontage. >> Then you'd only have one lot. So >> the most you could do without needing frontage relief would be two lots. two very long spaghetti box lots and no
roadway. >> If you just had the road in one lot, >> it doesn't really, right? You know what I'm saying? >> You could do that. It's generally not good planning to take somebody else's lot because you you're talking about move the road all the way up to the
north or all the way to the south. >> Well, either that or another frontage on somebody else's. >> There would be Well, it wouldn't be offsite. would still be I mean you have 450 feet of frontage. If you eliminate a lot that's 200 feet, >> you have enough room. So >> then the road would have to be all the
way down against the southern or all the way up against the northern property line. >> Would it would it though? Because you would not have a subdivision lot there. It would just be the road and your detention lot. >> The road would be up against somebody else's lot.
>> Yeah. If your suggest if the suggestion is to just eliminate that lot and blend it into the lot that's right next door, you would still have the same frontage issue because then that would just become one lot. >> It's still your lot. I mean, it's still you still have your your lots what they
are. You just don't have a house there. Therefore, it's not subdivided. So you have you your whole lot would essentially yeah you may jig the road a little bit but you would you would be able to you would be able to get it in because now you're you're you're constrained by the whatever the number
of feet are that that frontage is on Cedar Grove for the for the for the lot with a house on it. >> I mean we could realign the proposed private road to eliminate one of the frontage variances but not both. So anywhere we put that private road,
unless it is or make it a public road, unless it's up against the property to the north or the property to the south, we have two lots on either side. >> Oh, and the fact that it's is a private versus a public road makes >> doesn't make a difference. >> All right. Because you said because just
>> I want to clarify whichever way we did it, it would still need a 50 foot rightway and the curb returns. >> So you get rid of one variance, but you wouldn't get rid of both. >> That's correct. still something I want the board to understand but I just want us to
understand all the options right because applicants will come to us right as they rightfully will and they will say is benefit beneficial and it is for the applicant but not necessarily for the township so I want to understand all the ramifications because I'm not suggesting
you amend you pend the lot to the next lot it is your lot it's just not got a house on it and then you can you have a little more flexibility and then you just need one variance So, just wanted to get that on the record. Okay, that's all I have.
>> Just one question. Can you zoom into the driveway, please? >> I just want to make sure the board's a workers. The question did come up. So, it's a 50 foot rideway. >> No, sorry. The the you're talking about the entrance into the into the roadway. Yeah. So typically that when you have a
50 foot rideway, you typically have like a 30- foot road, a curb, grass strip, and sidewalk. At the entrance driveway, it is the full 50 ft is the full driveway. And as part of my letter, there's the sidewalks you see on the north and south. They're going to require easements for public access
because right now technically people would be walking on neighbors property to use those sidewalks. Just so the board's aware, because I know the question came up, was the was that a typical railway layout? Well, the other thing you probably don't need is a So, I'm looking at this now
closed up, right? I mean, you you've got a like both two lanes on one and one on the other. I mean, I don't know. I live on a street. It only has two lanes, right? With a double yellow line and one goes one way and one goes the other. You got a three lane here. You eliminate one
of those. What does that do? >> Takes it into a normal typical roadway. Whereas, this is like a gated like an entrance. >> Yeah. And that's what I'm saying is we eliminate that and we we we I think we have a better planning alternative. >> It doesn't change the variance though.
>> It reduces it. >> Nope. It wouldn't change it. >> Wouldn't change it at all. >> Wouldn't change it at all. >> The change would be that the easings would no longer be needed for the uh sidewalks, but it would change the
>> All right. just want to get all the options on the table because now's the time to do it so we can kind of give you guidance as to what we're thinking. >> So just one question. So could you zoom out a little bit just so we can see the frontages along um the private road in
Cedar Grove? >> Um so the variance is for how much frontage on Cedar Grove? Um what the engineer had testified to is it's um lot
12.01 has a frontage of 133 ft and lot 12.15 has a frontage of 167 ft. >> Okay. So I guess what he's doing then is okay I can see that dimension of 167 on the plat. Um, so I guess the the
frontage because visually when you compare 12.01 to the rest of the lots, um, it's more narrow than the rest of the lots going down the, um,
going down the proposed private road. Um, and noticeably so. Um, so I guess what the engineer did was he basically I would think typically you would kind of split the difference. Um, okay. He
basically included the entire curvature for the frontage on the private road. That's how he got to more than 200 ft on 12.01 >> rather than kind of splitting the
difference. Okay. >> Again, we'll have a representative from Menllo Engineering here on the 4th. So, if there's any uh additional comments about that on the engineering end of it, we're we're certainly happy to do that or if there's any comments on any reports. >> Do do you understand what I'm saying, Darren? Is that how you would typically
do it? So I think part of the problem he's at the 50 foot returns which he needs in terms of uh the right away and that's what's dictating this right now because it's basically how this lines up but >> it looks like that's what I was saying
before where he they looks and I'm just summizing what I think their engineer did. He's trying to meet the intent of the ordinance where roadways meet at a 90 perpendicular. >> So he picked the perpendicular. That's why this is down south a little bit.
>> That's what I think was verify. >> You know what? I do think I transcribed those numbers or Yeah. that it's 167 feet for the northern lot and 133 feet for the stormwater basin lot.
is >> apologize for the confusion there. >> Now, this is all caused by the curvature there and the curvature starts right at the edge of the property.
Um, that is the edge of the property, the edge of Cedar Grove Lane. And why do you I mean is that amount of curvature a normal amount or is that bigger than
would be required for a two-lane road going off Cedar Grove Lane? >> I'm going to defer to your engineer on that because I'm going to let your engineer answer that. >> Yeah.
>> So what I would a 50 foot return is typical I think we would want to ask Mela when they come back to see if that return could be reduced in compliance with the uh with the uh public math law because I think that's what's going to dictate this. That 50 foot radi is what's
dictating >> the uh variances to the degree they are. So if that radius was decreased those frontages would increase simultaneously. I think we should ask me to be able to answer that when we come back next time. >> We can do that.
Good idea. >> Anything from this end of the board? I mean, I think we have all the potential options on on the table, but yeah, Darren, that's a good idea. >> I thought of a couple of things uh while I was looking at the rendering again,
but I'm almost uh wondering if we got to the planner too soon. This might be a stupid question, but I didn't get it on the screen. Are there sidewalks proposed on the street
Cedar Grove Lane? >> Uh, I believe there are. Was that I'll defer to uh I'll defer to um >> there must be because otherwise Darren wouldn't have said you need an easement of >> Yeah, my understanding is that there are road.
>> I'm sorry. Can you repeat that? >> Yes. There there are sidewalks proposal in Cedar Grove lane for the county's requirements and that's why there's Because if you look at the drawing there, the rightway line actually goes right through the center of the sidewalk. So that's where I was part of where I
>> Okay. Just one to make sure. The other thing is with your your landscaping plan coming and your emphasis on more trees. Is there anything you can add to the
detention basin? maybe uh seems to to stick out quite a bit from the rest of the uh property now that I look at it more. Uh could could a planting I think I believe the
properties across the street from that are pretty wooded. Is there any chance that you could add an extra layer of landscaping along the street to make it deeper and not affect the the uh detention basin?
>> I'll defer uh to our engineer. I believe there was some testimony that there there are plantings within the basin because I think that's part of uh the green infrastructure what you have to do with those basins. But um I'll I'll have to defer that to the uh >> Okay. But that's not shown, right? I I think that's I think that's built into
what those detention basins have to contain. >> Correct. It's actually a sand basin, so they can't put any right now. There's no design landscaping within the stand. >> There can't be any. Okay. >> Not as a sand infiltration bas. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Yeah, I knew there were there were
differences between basins. Some, you know, uh the design let you put trees on top and some doesn't. And and and I guess this is one that doesn't. That's all I can. >> Any other questions from the board? Um,
if not, um, I guess just for formality, we want to open to the public because we can do that. Um, so make a motion to open to the public for any discussion on this application. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> Any member of the public wishing to
speak on this application? Seeing no takers, um, move to close. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> All right. Um, I guess you've got our feedback. Um, I would say that we would continue as a
board to favor um, clustering. Um, I mean, that's the feedback I have to give you. Um, that that we still feel that could work and we still feel that would be the best um, and most appropriate design from a planning standpoint. um get you the yield um the it would
satisfy the fact that it is a byite application. It would give you the yield of houses you want and it would preserve um and you know the most trees um and the board has been consistent in that. So I'll just want to put that on the record yet again. Um, and >> actually, Mike, thinking about it now,
we probably preserve more trees with this 40ft buffer that if if there are really trees in it, uh, than with the clustering that I had proposed and it's certainly more protection for the houses
next door. I go, >> well, h having never seen a design for a cluster, I don't know that we can probably make that statement definitively. Um, no. >> So, I mean, we can only ultimately the board, just so the board knows, um, I
can't say I move that, you know, we approve with the cluster, I can't do that. We have to only we can only, um, we can only motion on what the plan is before us. So, um, come the what is it? >> The fourth March. >> March 4th, we'll have the complete plan
and that's what we'll we'll ultimately ultimately vote on. So, um, but yeah, I wouldn't know, Ted, because we've never we've never seen a design that way to be able to evaluate. >> All right. So, um, if anything else,
we'll see you on March 4th. >> Thank you. Appreciate it. >> So, let's just real quick, we have to tell the applicant when, um, because we we don't if you want revised reports, we can't just get them 10 days prior. >> Let me just let me just uh do the math here. So,
um, what do you think? Get it out. We basically would need like Yeah. So, um, when it's going to be a re-review and since this is not a small project, we we would staff would need
two weeks. Um, so we we would need those plans. Christine sends the plans out every Tuesday. So, at the absolute latest, we would need those plans by uh February 9th on that Monday, >> February 9th. >> I mean, you could submit them 10 days prior, but you're not getting revised
reports. >> And just to be clear, there is another application that's on on the 4th. So, if we did have to it's not that the meeting wouldn't as as of right now, it's not that the meeting would not be held if we were to carry that. Uh so, it could be announced at that time as well since
there's another application on. Correct. Yeah, there's another application on the night. >> I I didn't know if you guys if you didn't have applications if you didn't meet in which case you wouldn't announce because if we just carry it over here >> it's not continuous.
>> If it's not continuous they'd have to renotice. So as of now they don't if it's the fourth. If we were to cancel the meeting on the 4th then we have no way to inform the public but with another notice. Well, well, no. I mean, if the meeting is canceled, there's ways, right, that we could post. There's
there's ways we could that's but as of right now, I mean, I think with the board's new policy for since they came and we had a hearing, I think it's, you know, the notice to the public now verbally, >> right? But it's for the fourth. So, now what Tim is asking is if we didn't come
on the fourth and nobody was to know that they were then carried, right? if they want to carry it now with the risk of no reports. You want to carry it a week or two or whatever since he's giving us to the deadline of of end of March. >> Yeah, I'll just say I think the board's intent for that change was essentially
if the applicant chooses not to come then they have to renotice. So if they if they so my opinion of how how kind of reading what your intent was >> if they decide not to come then they have to renotice because it's essentially it's on them. Yeah. So
>> yeah. So as of now we're still the fourth and the ninth >> the fourth and we'll deal with what we'll deal with if there has to be a renotice or not. >> I mean at the very least you come and and we carry it but then you don't have to renotice. I mean it's up to you. It's just the burden you choose whether you want to renotice. >> Understood.
>> All right. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Um for the for the master plan. So, um, Jen gave a few comments by email, but to tell you the truth, um, and I I'm stand guilty here. Um, and since we had an application tonight, I have yet to go
through this in gory detail. Um, before the meeting, we have decided, um, Christine and and Mark and I have decided that February 4th meeting with no applications, we're only going to do the discussion of the master plan. Um,
it's going to snow. you can curl up with this and give write down your suggestions and um do what you need. So what I would say is probably try to maybe defer that discussion to the fourth. We can have some discussion now if anybody has read it and has anything to tell Mark get a head start on it. We
have Jen's comments. Um you'll you'll get mine um next week for sure. Um but yeah, I don't have any. >> Yeah, personally I you know again if the board members have any comments um I'd love to hear them. uh in the second email where I sent that revised draft I I said you know if you want to get me
com don't reply all but if you want to send them to me um then I you know you know I I'll obviously consider your comment you know perhaps put some language in the revised draft and may move it along um rather than reacting on
the spot. Uh so so bottom line is if you have comments between now uh you know anytime soon please get them to me. I have a a general comment which is that my specific comments are not really on
the plan qua plan. It's comments like why don't we do such and such. For instance, we have a whole set of different specifications for clustering. Why don't we have one section on clustering? Even
if the absolute requirements are different for different zones, it might be better. Al although I suppose that leaving them separated in the different
zones is perhaps makes them more obvious to the applicant. That's >> yeah. >> But most of all is if if the suggestion of the plan is that we consider one set of clustering requirements, then
we ought to do something about it. >> Yes, I agree. And you'll see as you go through it, you'll see, you know, a lot of it is it's a kind of a status update. You know, the last plan recommended X, Y, and Z and that was accomplished. Um there's a lot of that, but there are
some things that are were have been recommended previously that we didn't do, and that's one of the things that Ted is is speaking speaking of. Uh, one other comment in detail. I think on page 17, it at the very bottom it it talks
about uh properties on the north side of Skilman Lane still being R40 and suggesting changing the large lots to A and it says, "Oh, this was accomplished by ordinance." The map you
have does not show that change. Okay, I'll look into that. >> And I I quite agree. I mean, the the westerly of the two large lots there which are well actually there's more than that because it's
but the larger lots there I think are all owned by the state for the six mile run reserve. I I know specifically the one that
fronts on uh South Middlebush Road does because Puscus farmed it. And uh one year he was pissed off at David Brookke living in the township historic house there. I'm trying to remember the name of it.
>> Van Lucidam, >> I think he was was he he was in Vanlucinam. >> Yeah. Anyway, so he got some sort of stuff from Meadowbrook seawage treatment plant and
used that for his fertilizer because it smelled a high heaven. >> Okay. So, I'll look into that about skill skillman's a large lots on Skilman's. Yeah, it's it's more the map should be correct if if we
>> really have changed those to a >> okay I'll look into that make sure it's correct >> yeah and of of course the the negri neapoti reserve of course is a should be a >> but the houses the several houses on the
north side more easterly they can remain our 40 >> okay yeah >> you know Uh, >> anything else, Ted? >> I probably I might write up something on
the various things I think we we should maybe do something about instead of complaining about them every once in a while. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I will do I will do the same thing. >> Yeah. And and I think you'll find that and and I think at the end of this, you
know, I kind kind of consider this a big to-do list. Um so certainly if there are things that are in here that say hasn't been accomplished. So um there are a few of those and you know if those some of those that you want to perhaps it says this should be a high priority item and
we just put that in you put that right into the document. Um but again I would I would also say again I've tried hard to um especially with the additions that I added in the second draft to try to add things in there that I thought you would want in this document. Um, but I
obviously can't read your minds. So, please, you know, in reviewing it, obviously, you know, I'd like you to review it and make sure that you agree with what I wrote on your behalf. Um, because ultimately it is your document, but also look at think about are there,
frankly, things that I missed. Um, because again, I did try to incorporate things that we've discussed over the years. One of the comments that Jen brought up was about the sidewalks um which was a very good comment basically saying that we should have um
the planning board and the zoning board should have some type of guidance. You know, every seems like every few months we're having this discussion about whether there should be sidewalks, whether there shouldn't be sidewalks. Should it be on that side or this side? >> I'm looking at you, Bob Thomas, because I know this is something that you bring
up a lot. So, you think that was a very good comment. So I think there should be something in there about that topic. So think of things like that, you know, that again over the years that we've talked about and if it should be mentioned in here and and and that I and you know to the degree I didn't already,
you know, address it. Just just a question then. Uh where will it be appropriate if at all to bring up uh the issue we had with the zoning board a couple weeks ago with the self not self storage outdoor storage facility
>> is that >> I I I think that the um the general issue well I I the I mean the issue being that I mean there's a few different issues there. I mean one I know you were concerned about
there being one particular outside storage use that's been there a while then there was also concern you we don't have standards for out well we do have standards for outside storage but it's they're somewhat limited um so I think it depends on what the you exactly what
the comment would be so I guess I'm looking back at you Bob >> well it turns out that there are are a few a least a couple of outdoor storage facilities and they're Not a permitted use anywhere, right? >> Not no not a stand standalone outdoor
storage as a as a pr as the principal use of the property is not a permitted. >> And what it looks like is there might be a very fine line between what someone calls out outdoor storage and a junkyard.
So all I'm asking is is this something we need to look into? And if we do, is it now or later? may not be the high priority you're talking about before, but and we didn't we didn't get we've only had one of these
>> Yeah. >> applications in 20ome years. But then again, when you look around, there are a few of these facilities that we never dealt with. >> Yeah. So, I guess my answer to that, you can you can the township can deal with
with that and other issues whenever you wish. It doesn't have to be in a master plan to deal with something like that. But but I do but I do again kind of consider this >> I think it's a good exercise. You know sometimes state requirements we're required to review our master plan and
development regulations every 10 years and do this um exercise. You know as far as state mandates this is actually probably a good one. It's a good idea to go through our development regulations every once in a while in our master plan and determine are they still good? Are
things are there things like this that we need to address? So I would say you know we could address it to whatever degree of we just address it generally just we we should look at outdoor storage uses in town and regulate them appropriately and then there and that
and then that covers it. It's in our to-do list. >> Yep. >> So we could cover it as simply as that. >> It just should be this board that does it though. The zoning board doesn't want to set the standards. >> No, this board would do that. >> Let's put it on the list of things to do otherwise we'll forget. Just think about
I mean think about what zones you would make it a conditional permitted use have some standards and then you can regulate it right cuz without without any standards it's a free-for-all or it's not permitted and then like Mark says it's whack-a-ole right because the
people come and they'll >> um store it in Cedar Grove Cemetery as they did once and um and you know various other places which we don't want. So the best thing to do is make it a conditional permitted use somewhere, set standards for it, and then we could regulate it, we can we can shape it, we
can deny it, we can approve it, but at least there's something there. >> And and and Bob, yeah, and I'll just I think that's a very good example. And so, thank you for bringing that up because I think that is a that's just a good example again of what I was asking the board a few minutes ago. you know, are there
issues out there, things going on that, hey, is do we address X, Y, and Z? You know, you could, you know, either either put that in your email to me or bring that up at the next meeting and we can have that discussion. Some of it might already be addressed, some of it, you
know, might not be, but just put it out there um for discussion. And that's a that's a very good that's a good very good example of that. >> So, Christine, could you do me a favor? um can you write an email to the board um letting them know that February 4th
is going to be dedicated to the master plan and then on the 18th we're actually going to move because we're under deadline um and we'll give ourselves some buffer um move to actually approve the re-examination. So February 4th is going to be dedicated to this and only
this. There'll be no applications. Um that and attach another copy because nobody will go back in their emails, right, and find the copy that you already sent twice. Um so do that and then and then let them know that they can either um write in an email only to
mark um what their ideas are or or bring it to the meeting or or whatever the case may be. But that February 4th is time to like speak or forever hold your peace and then we'll >> So in between shoveling on Sunday and Monday as the chairman said, you know,
if you have a fireplace or not, maybe put it on maybe go to YouTube and put a fire on your on your TV, curl up at the master plan with some hot cocoa >> and happy reading. Yeah, I mean it Mark put a lot of work
into this and and we owe him that we are going to at least read what he wrote on our behalf. Um put in the work that we need to do as a planning board and have this and so I'll I'll be remiss in not doing that before tonight. Um I was going to do it over the break because I
think we got this about a month ago and then I went back to work on January 5th and well so much for that. So anyway, we we will definitely get it. I just make one further comment that I think where
something remains to be done. We should think about well what do we want to achieve uh in filling in this blank. I mean for instance I was thinking about clustering
and I think there's two different sorts of clustering. One is what we were talking about with respect to Odin Dunn of shrinking the lot slightly in order to preserve some natural feature of a property but
that's a fairly small change and on the other hand and I think this is what clustering was originally intended for and the agricultural cluster zone which is wildflower ridge which I've been told
cannot be fulfilled anywhere else in the township. The point was to cluster a lot smaller lots than the zone A or canal protection say uh asks for in
order to keep a large area in a natural state or in a farming state perhaps more. And if we're going to write a regulation, we might want to write in a
essence two regulations for those two different situations which are sort of at opposite ends of a spectrum. >> But that's just thinking off the top of my head. But it's the kind of thinking that we ought to do. >> Yeah. And and and again, I would say um
that um I agree with what you're saying. I think in the interest of time if you know I would keep in the mindset of we don't have to solve the solutions now in here and this isn't this is the where we kind of identify the issues and the
problems. >> Yeah. And then and then if so if it's we need to simplify and bolster our cluster regulations >> and maybe make a few points >> then there's going to be it's going to be on the to-do list and we're going to be doing a draft ordinance and and we'll
be discussing it at subsequent you know work sessions over the next year or so. That's when we'll get in the weeds of of things like that. And of course there can be the problem and there's one place where you've mentioned it that we we produce a change and the council doesn't
go along with it. >> There was one s one such instance. Yes. >> Yeah. It says that the council considered this suggestion and ultimately moved not to support it. I've
forgotten what it was but >> there's always that risk. But I mean before we put a lot of work on it, we can we can take the temperature of things. So that's that's not that hard. But yeah, I mean I agree with Ted. We should we should do that kind of level of thinking. >> There may not be a lot of places to
cluster anymore, but you know, I think it's worth doing because you never know where, you know, somebody could acquire multiple pieces and stitch them together that we don't think about. We're looking at a lot line and saying, "Well, this is can't be done. This can't be done." But you buy three of them and you put them
all together and you consolidate and now all of a sudden you've got a huge subdivision where we didn't think so. So yeah, it's worth doing. All right, so with that, uh, Christine, any questions? Just remind us all again, I'll I'll second whatever you send out
by email. Um, and then we'll we'll do that on the 4th. So that's our next meeting is February 4th. So um, not next week. So got one week off. Motion >> to. >> All right. Motion to adjurnn. Second. >> All in favor?