Meeting of the planning board for May 6th in accordance with the open public meetings act PL 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. All right. Okay. Um, Robert Leort asked to be
excused and Charles Brown asked to be excused. Councilman Embarson >> here. >> Theodore Chase >> here. >> Mark Dancy. >> Jennifer Ragnau >> here. >> Mahir Rafi >> here. >> Robert Thomas >> here. Sammy Shab Siobhan. Nope.
And Chairman Rousini >> here. Okay. So, before we get started tonight, we're going to do a little u massage of the agenda. So, uh the Somerset County the the the only hearing we have tonight, which is subdivision for open space.
Easy. Nobody going to throw sticks and bricks at us. Um, the problem is their attorney is in a different Franklin Township cuz there's a few of them in New Jersey now. He's on his way here and I do not want to carry this again. So, we're going to we're
going to put that last sort of is last, but we're going to do we're going to do the ordinance discussion. We're going to do board comments. We're going to we're going to do everything we can, which granted is not going to be great a lot take a lot of time, but we're going to do everything we can. first um Peter and
I decided that we would uh wait to see where that puts him and because this is a very simple uh subdivision, but it has to be uh according to Peter uh who I trust implicitly be represented by an attorney. If he can pull over to uh you
know the whatever rest stop he's near and do it by telephone, we can just do it that way. So um we will we will figure that out at that time. So given that uh we'll do the regular minutes from uh April 1st.
>> Move to approve. >> Uh Bob Thomas moves to approve and I will second. >> Okay. Councilman Embar. >> Yes. >> Jennifer. >> Yes. >> Yes.
>> Robert Thomas. Yes. >> And chairmani. >> Uh yes. Uh we have one discussion item. It is extension of time for ID Isle Davidson LLC and um Paul Kator is here to uh tell us about that.
>> Good evening. Uh thank you. Paul Kator uh from law firm of Price Me Shan and Dminino representing the applicant ID Davidson LLC. I'm here for a second uh one-year extension of our final approval. You granted one last year. Um
the project is actually it's a little curious. The project is actually under construction as we speak. So that does vest to some degree. In fact, the walls are half up. They should be finished this week. The intent of my client is to continue to conclusion. However, there
is still a lot of volatility as it relates to supply chain items and other things that may cause some pause in construction that's beyond our ability to control. And you know that may be material and although obviously we think we are vested and god forbid anything
were to happen we would have very very strong arguments to that there still is even you know some measure of ambiguity or and such. So we really would like the one-year extension so that way in any event of any need to pause construction at any point we know that for certain
the protection is granted for the additional year and we don't have to essentially worry about it and we certainly think it will be done certainly in that year. So respectfully, we're requesting that second one-year extension >> to May 6th, 2027. >> That's correct. >> Okay. Any board questions?
>> Seeing none, um I make a motion to approve an extension for IDIL till May 6th, 2027. >> Second. >> Chairman and uh Councilman and Barson, >> yes. >> Theodore Chase, >> yes. >> Jennifer Ragno, >> yes. >> Mah Rafi, >> yes.
>> Robert Thomas, >> yes. >> And Chairman Rini, >> yes. Thank you very much. >> Okay, as you can see, that didn't take long. Um, uh, public comments. Um, so this is
for general planning comments, not related to any hearings we have tonight, which is one. Uh, and so, um, with that, I move to open to the public. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> Anybody from the public with any general
planning comments? If anybody is here to speak for or against the county of Somerset open space, uh there will be a separate opening for that. Seeing no takers, I move to close. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> All right. Uh
uh Mark will go to the um so Mark has uh been um kind enough uh in some other uh pressing matters that um he's taken care of for council to start work on our master plan ordinances which is great and um you will have all gotten an email
from about uh the need these are fairly simple and not not necessary to convene that subcommittee that I twisted a few arms to to to do. So, uh, but you know, I didn't lie. I said it wouldn't be much work. So, uh, with that, Mark, it's all yours. >> Yeah. So, as the chairman said, the
first ordinance, um, you obviously there's the, if you, as you recall from the master plan re-examination, we have a a relatively lengthy list of things to do. Um so the direction from the board and the chair were to work on uh to start with some of the easier ones uh as
well as some of the um easier slash um higher um you know priority ones. Uh so the first set of changes uh just so you know what you're looking at um the changes that are shown in red uh obviously those that have strikeout are
proposed to come out of the ordinance and those that have underline in red is language that would be uh uh suggested to go into the ordinance. Uh so we looked at um the principal or the permitted uses in various zones and
basically look for uses that really kind of didn't make a lot of sense. Um you'll see golf courses. Um now there is an existing golf course. Um that's in the A zone that is proposed to stay as a permitted use. So, we're not creating a
new nonconformity, but there are other zones where golf courses are permitted essentially without any restrictions in residential zones. Um, so it's proposed for those to go out. That doesn't mean somebody can I mean there's really not land for it, but if somebody was to make
an application, they can go to the zoning board and prove to the zoning board that they should be located in a residential zone. But locating that type of use in single family residential zones with no restrictions didn't seem to make a lot of sense. So it's proposed
u to be taken out. Um similar to that um hospitals uh again those could be very intensive extremely intensive commercial uses lots of traffic and noise and those are permitted in a number of our residential lowdensity
residential zones. Uh so that's proposed to come out. Same exact thing. It's really the same thing with all these uses. If somebody was to propose a hospital, they can certainly make an application. Um our ordinance permits philanthropic and emissinary uses.
Um I think that's basically kind of like we do have one I can think of. There's um uh one of the lodges that's uh I think it's in an R seven zone. Again, similar to what I discussed with golf courses, it's proposed to stay. Same thing also with uh there's further down
you'll see membership swimming pools. The zone where that existing use is located. It's proposed to keep that in the ordinance again so as not to create a non-conforming use. Um but otherwise it's proposed to take it out basically
within the the single family zones. uh uses that you commonly find in our residential zones or in in frankly most towns residential zones, churches, places of worship um you know are proposed to remain and those uses we
have very robust standards to help the sur or to to protect the surrounding neighbors you know uh buffering and lighting standards and things like that. um community residences. I think this is a a very old um remnant. I would say I I
think this has been the ordinance for a very long time. Um the municipal land use law supersedes municipal ordinances in this regard. Municipal land use law says we have to permit certain types of group homes uh as we do permit uh you know other you know no with no
additional standards as we permit single family homes. Um and uh so we have different standards from that that are frankly um inconsistent with the municipal land use law. Um so that should come out for that reason. Um
again that's membership swimming pools. Uh again it would stay in the R uh 40 zone where the existing use is is uh already there. So we're not making it a non-conforming use. And then it's basically the same changes through some of the other uh single family
residential zones um taking out the uses I just described. And then lastly under in our cluster residential zone uh where we do permit single family homes, two family homes, garden apartments and town homes. That's where we find most of those uh such developments. There's a
use called residential cluster developments. It's not defined. We don't know what that means. So when you have an undefined indeterminate use, it's probably better to take it out particularly where the uses that do exist there are already, you know, in the ordinance and will will
remain permitted. Uh so that's the that's section one. So I'll leave that to does the do does the board have any questions? >> Yes. >> Isn't there a golf course at SC Spooky
Brook golf course at Colonial Park? Uh, yeah, that's a good question. I I I think that that's a that's a county facility. Um, >> I I >> Yeah, I'm not even sure as a county facility. I'm not even sure. I'm looking at Peter. I'm not even sure if they're
subject to our as a from a use perspective, I'm not sure they need >> from a use perspective, they probably wouldn't need because it's a county facility and the county facility would be the golf course. So, it's just county recreational space, so to speak. Um it's not the same as um you know a private
golf course that's operated for profit. >> Yeah. >> So >> which is the Bunker Hill golf course, >> right? So from from your perspective, it's it's it's county land that they would need to come in and probably tell you what they want to do. Um you know, like a capital project review kind of thing, but you aren't going to be able
to tell them no. So it's kind of immaterial. >> Okay. >> So I have I have a question. Um so this is for going forward, right? What about those community res community homes or group homes that are already existing in
a residential area? >> Um I'm not sure I'm not sure if there are any outside of those that exist by virtue of the fact that they're permitted under the municipal land use law as group homes. Um
>> what do we mean? >> What do we mean by group homes to clarify? >> So um there's different categories. the the the the most typical one and and we have a number uh in Franklin Township is is homes for people with developmental disabilities and that they're allowed to
have a certain number of residents. Um and again when they uh you know usually they'll they will buy a single family home, convert it to for group home use >> and they have I think it's up to 15 residents can live in that group home. um you know if it's licensed by the
Department of Developmental Disabilities within the DCA of the state we have to permit them in that way. >> So this is this is not a center for great expectations a springhill nursing home or anything like that. >> It's not Spring Hill. It might center for great expectations I think might
count as a group home >> because it's really not what you just described where you have a very >> well there's a different there's there's different categories >> um and I think they fall within I think I think center for expectations um falls under one of those categories.
>> Okay. So they would still continue to be a permitted use. >> All right. >> Right. All you're doing is you're removing a municipal regulation of something that's already um been regulated by the state and their state regulations would supersede anything we have anyway.
>> Yeah. So for example, the next section is taking out the conditional use standards >> for that use and we can't require 5 acres for a group that's not in an R3 zone. It's not per we can't do that. It's essentially illegal. >> Yeah. And I I think what you said is
really important to convey to council who will probably ask the same question I did, right? Because they're not going to want to um you know make make beneficial uses in the community a pre-existing non-conforming use. So um yeah, I mean just to clarify that I
think would be good, right? >> I think Mr. Couch is going to help them. >> Okay. >> So >> you're going to pinch hit. >> Yes. >> Fantastic. Do you want to pivot to that so we can, you know, Yes, let's let's pivot and we can we can we'll pause on whatever page
we are. Thank you so much for the pinch hit. I appreciate it. >> To sit around. >> All right. >> So, I'll start. >> Get a gold star for me. Thank you. >> Thank you. No problem. So, uh my name is Paul Ktorii uh from law firm of Price
Shman and Dominino representing the applicant the county of Somerset. Um this application is for a subdivision of a currently 32 acre piece of property which currently has a residential structure on it. Um the intent is to
subdivide the home the land which owns which has the structure on it which is about 9 acres and the balance of the property uh will be deed restricted for open space. Um, as you will hear from from my witness, um, there were public
funds acquired for for acquiring the property. So, that will be what it is, open space. So, unless there are any questions, I'm going to have one witness, Samantha Deandria, who is a professional planner. So, unless there's anything else, I can I can proceed. Okay. Can you just
>> Miss Deandria, if I There we go. If I could just swear you in, can you raise your right hand for me, please? Do you swear the testimony you're going to provide is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes. If you could state your name, spell your last name, and give us your address, please, for the record. >> Samantha Deandria, D capital A N D R E A
294 Long Hill Road, Hillsboro, New Jersey, 08844. >> Okay, Miss DeAndre, can you provide the board with the benefit of your qualification? >> Can I just one one more thing? You're a licensed professional planner, state of New Jersey? >> Yes, sir. >> Currently in good standing. >> Yes, I am a licensed professional
planner and the director of planning for Somerset County. >> Thank you. Very qualified to the name. Um, so you don't have to stand. >> We're all thrown off. >> Uh, Mr. Andre, uh, can you, uh, give the benefit the board the benefit of your
analysis of of the property, the proposed subdivision, the plan, running through the sizes of the properties and so on. Also noting the the public funds being used for the deed restriction. >> Yeah. So, I'll run through the project. So, the purpose of this application is pretty straightforward. Um, the county
is under contract to purchase approximately 23.9 acres of the existing 32.9 acre property for permanent open space preservation. The remaining 9 acres of the property, which contains an existing single family home and accessory structures, will remain with the current owner as a separate
residential lot. No new development is being proposed as a part of this application. This is strictly a preservationoriented subdivision intended to facilitate the acquisition and long-term preservation of the majority of the property. The proposed preserved parcel identified as lot 2.08
is contiguous to existing county-owned open space in the north and east and will add approximately 23.9 acres to the county's open space inventory within the Milstone Valley preservation area. The property itself is located within the canal preservation zone and currently contains an existing residence,
driveway, barn, sheds, pool, and other accessory improvements and the surrounding areas characterized by residential, agricultural, and conservation uses. Um, and the proposed sub subdivision will maintain that character. So, as a part of the application, we are requesting three
bulk variances. The first relates to lot frontage where proposed lot 2.08 08 would provide approximately 297 feet of frontage along Canal Road where 400 is required. The second is the creation of a through lot due to the existing configuration of the property and its
frontage along both Canal Road and Old Georgetown Road. And the third is an existing accessory structure on the retained residential parcel where the rear yard setback will become 129 ft instead of the required 150 ft. Um we believe that these variances are supported under the sea criteria because
the benefits of the application substantially outweigh any detriment. Most importantly, the application facilitates the permanent preservation of nearly 24 acres of land in the canal preservation zone. Um in addition, the requested variances are largely driven by existing site
conditions and the goal with the goal of maximizing the amount of land that can be preserved. The application does not create any new development impa impacts and the retained residential lot will continue functioning as it does today using the existing driveway and improvements.
>> Those are all the questions I have. >> Does the board have any questions? >> Yeah. So, just just to show the board if maybe you could use your cursor and just just show the board. So, you've basically you're dealing with the land owner. You're you you negotiated to acquire the majority of the property. They basically, I guess, wanted to
retain a certain port portion of land for themselves. Could you just show the board the portion that the applicant or that the homeowner is going to retain? >> Yeah. So, it's this portion. >> Okay. And in the middle is the house. >> Yes, this is the house. >> Okay. Can you point to where the um the
deficient frontage is? I think it's on Canal Road. >> Zoom in a little bit here maybe. >> Yes. So it's it's along here. >> Okay. So yeah, and I think it's it may actually be the the proposed open space lot. >> Oh yes, >> that looks like a shorter.
>> Yeah. And then and then so you can see what I wanted to point out to the board is I think these are if ever it's not a legal term, but you know, we use the term every once in a while technical variances. You know, meaning they're variances on paper, but really have no effect in real life. You know, that's a
frontage for a lot. That's for open space. It's not going to be not not going to have a home on it. It's going to be an open space. It really has no effect. That open space lot is it has front is going to have frontage on two streets. Technically, we're not we don't want to create lots where the home is
backing up to another street. Technically, on paper, this is a through lot. Again, for all practical purposes, there's no impact. And then the the uh new lot that's going to be created to retain the house uh has an old barn on
it. And the proposed uh property lines that are going to separate the house lot, if you will, and the open space lot is a little bit closer than the uh to that barn um than would otherwise be required. Um so again, I just wanted to point out the nature of you know, again,
the tech technical nature of these variances. >> Thank you, Mark. >> Thank you. And I would >> I'd like to comment. >> Yeah. >> Since I live up the street and I I know the property uh particularly with
respect to the through lot uh and also to the frontage. The canal road frontage is quite steep and you really wouldn't enter the property from there. the you really would enter the the county lot
from Old Georgetown Road. >> Yeah. So, there's an existing access point. There's a gate along Old Georgetown Road, and that would be how we'd how we'd anticipate accessing. >> Yeah, exactly. Goes into the big field there. >> Then it looks like
>> then it looks like about uh 24 acres, just short of 24 acres of the 32, it would be preserved. Correct. It's 23.9. >> Got it. Thank you. >> And Mr. Andrew, just just to confirm for the record based on some of the discussion from Mr. Healey and and some of the questions, obviously as a
professional planner, your expert conclusion is that the benefits of of these variances in light of the preserved uh in perpetuity for open space and such, the benefits outweigh the detriments of these variances. Correct. >> Exactly. >> If you can just confirm for the record. >> Yes.
>> Thank you. >> Yeah. No, I'm I'm I'm I'm good. Does anybody else have any any questions? No. All right. Um if not, I'll make a motion to open to the public for any question. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> Seeing no one to come forward. Um I move
to close. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> Um so in summation, uh we we have uh the three variances. is we have testimony that they're um can justified under
under C2 criteria and um so I would make a motion to uh approve the subdivision application with the three variances. >> Second. >> Councilman Embarson. >> Yes. >> Theodore Chase. >> Yes. >> Jennifer Ragnau.
>> Yes. >> Mahir Rafi. >> Yes. >> Robert Thomas. >> Yes. >> Chairman Rini. >> Yes. Thank you very much. >> Thank you, Paul, for uh for pitching in. Um you contact that attorney and they owe you a beer, right? I know.
>> There you go. >> Thanks so much. Good to see you. >> Yep. No problem. >> What? Franklin Township. >> Really? He doesn't live in a township that has two. Yeah, >> he's he's going to go lives in Monroe and he's going to go to the wrong Monroe
township. Also, there's like like 10. >> Oh, absolutely. You forget Washington Township, you'd be you'd be really out of luck. >> Yeah. Yeah. All right, let's go back to Mark. So, we had uh I think we're probably um just basically uh crossing out a lot of things that weren't were
going to be taken out anyway because I think that's where um so, but Mark, I'll turn it back over to you for any any >> Yeah, that's Yeah, exactly. Uh Mike, that there. Yes. The next section is basically taking out the conditional use standards uh for those. >> Could I ask a question before you go to
the next section? >> Yeah. when when you get to R40 residential, you have a permitted we have a permitted use uh for farming operations and I understand we have farms in our 40 zones
and they have they're multiple size multiple acreage. Is there a minimum size? I mean, is it technically it's possible to have a 40,000 square foot lot with some kind of
farming operation under this? >> Yeah. Well, this >> this is really in a way this language, the fact that it says farming operations to a degree is um redundant because there's a separate section in our ordinance that basically says farming is
permitted. We there's the right to farm, >> right? Um, so I I I I don't think there's I I I don't think there's there's a minimal lot area. Off the top of my head, I don't know um that answer to tell you the truth. If there's a minimal lot
area, >> well, I mean, if it's farmland assessment, that's a different question. But to actually use a portion of your property to grow crops, I don't think there's a minimum lot area. >> What about animals?
We have to we do have a section in our ordinance that talks about the um if you have a a structure that for the housing of animals, it has to be at least 100 ft from a property line. And then uh the township council passed an ordinance a
year or two ago addressing uh that's outside the the the zoning ordinance that talks about um uh chick having chickens in some of the smaller um lot residential zones. But there's no
definition per se of what a farm is. >> There's no there's >> is that correct? >> There may be a definition of what a farm is, but there's no limitation on the lot size to grow crops. >> Before we get
tied up in this, this is a personal concern. I'll admit it upfront, >> but >> I have a property that's in back of me. It's one acre, one family house connected to a farm, but it's not connected to a farm, but it's owned by
the farm family. I was approached not long ago uh when this happened about the possibility of having pigs put on that acre of land
next to me. That would be permitted. I don't and if if they had our our zoning ordinance does not address the uh uh the number of animals. It does address the where you can place the structures. So if they had if they
had a structure to house the pigs that would have to be 100 foot from the property line that to some degree does affect where you can have it because you have to have a larger piece of property to have stables or other things and meet that 100 foot setback requirement.
>> Now if you'd be worried about whether the pigs would be housed on the actual denovo farm, right? uh and then maybe allowed to graze in this 1acre lot or 1acre separate, you know, sub subdivided lot that is contiguous to the farm but
is a different property line. That might be a valid question because they wouldn't be housing like Mark says 100 foot back. They they probably couldn't fit it to house any any number of of pigs. But if if you're worried about the pigs coming over, right, to that one
acre and and being doing what whatever pigs do, you might you might then have a >> Well, I'm just beginning to think that a a farm maybe should be conditional in in on a property size in a residential in a
zone that's actually residential that happens to have a and I'm very happy for the most part happens to have a grandfathered farm. But as you say, being called a farm
gives you certain farming right to farm rights which are not in my mind. I'm not sure they're compatible with a true R40 residential zone. I understand you have a, you know,
people have a couple animals. >> You have a chicken ordinance. >> You have things like like that, but this this is a little bit different level. >> Yeah. I'm just looking to see if if there's um
>> we don't have that answer to it tonight, do we? >> No. >> Yeah. I think I think we could look into that. That's that's a more complicated matter than I think the purpose of this ordinance because we would have to check um and obviously that's that would be a um you know important policy decision on
the council level frankly of how to address you know those type uses. >> Well also you have to look at the right to farm regulations and figure out what we can and can't regulate in the first place. So it's just another it's another layer. I'm not saying that we can't look into it, but I will tell you I'm not an
expert on right to farm and would need to look into that if you guys wanted input on it. Um, and you know, uh, Mr. Reone may also want to weigh in on it as this is ultimately a township issue. It's not really a board issue. So, I would want to speak with him as well. Y
>> I think we should add on to that and then and work on it be because >> a a farm here is not el to be um to get financing or uh farmland preservation rights or
whatever from the to sell them to the county as farmland preservation. You have to be in an in an a zone, right? >> No, you're you're talking about a few different things. I know, but they're they're all inter interconnected in one
sense. If you can't preserve the farm, >> I don't know. I don't know if there's any restriction on a size. It doesn't have to. You can the Azone. You don't have to be in the Azone to preserve a farm for farm preservation.
We have preserved farms through in many zones. >> I mean, was it Saddam and like R10 or something like that? but town houses and stuff like countryside. So, yeah. No, here's what I'd suggest. Um, >> this is all good. I'm glad this actually
comes up because this is what we should do as as planners. Um, we're not proposing tonight to make any changes to farming operations. The smallest zone, those are allowed as R40. Um, I sense there there's just too many open questions like what is right to farm?
What is the minimal size? we're not talking about farmland assessment. Um, so that's a whole different deal. So, let's get those answers and then we'll we can revisit it in the future, right? Um, so let let's try to proceed tonight to get this lowhanging fruit through here. So, Mark, just continue on that
and we'll make a note to get back to you, Bob. That's it's all good. I I love this because if we're really turning this over the way we should, questions will come up. >> And then, okay, so the next section, this is this is really almost editorial.
in nature. Um they recodified our ordinance about 10-15 years ago, meaning they moved things around, put things in different sections, and frankly, they put them in the wrong section. So, we have a few uses that you the way that the ordinance is structured. If you remember the uh
the schedule one, which was the use schedule I went when I went through a few minutes ago, there's permitted uses, accessory uses, and conditional uses. Conditional uses, I'm sorry, permitted uses don't have um specific use related
requirements attached to them. Places of worship and and churches and and schools in residential zones, you have to meet a number of different particular um requirements to be located in a in in in a residential zone. garden apartments in
the um are permitted in our cluster residential zone as are town homes. Um and they are they are permitted principal uses. We have some design standards and when they recodified it, they put it in
our conditional use section. So, it's kind of confusing. It's kind of in the wrong place. So, we're just moving it into a section of the ordinance called supplemental zoning requirements. So, there's no confusion that in those zones where garden apartments and town homes
are permitted principal uses, you find those design requirements in the supplemental zoning se requirements, not conditional use. We don't want to have some attorney saying something different because frankly, it's just in the wrong place in our ordinance. So, this is this
is a long winded way of saying it's just in the wrong location in the ordinance. Um, so that's what those that's what those changes are in three and four. Section five, I think this I added I I think I
added this from the version I sent you guys. Um, this again is very technical. R10A single family development. Um, in the R10A, single family homes are permitted principal use and um, when
they recodified it, they put it in the conditional use section. So, it's putting it in just again the right section of our ordinance. Um, the language here where it says conditional uses shall be public utilities installations. This is redundant because this is already in schedule one. So, we
don't want to have kind of the same requirement addressed in two different sections. we can make a change and then it then the ordinance becomes inconsistent. So it's just making the ordinance a little cleaner. This is not a substantive change because again it's already addressed somewhere else.
Six same uh this is the same the first change moving this from 11253 to 1123311. What this section is talking about is um this addresses two shopping centers. One is the Cedar Grove shopping center and
the other is the small shopping center on Damont with the with is it Cafe Amichi? Those are technically in the cluster residential zone. Uh I'm not going to go into the history of that zone, but bottom line is uh when those big developments were uh developed, a
small portion of it was permitted to have a retail shopping center. And this section of the ordinance addresses what can you know how those areas were de permitted to be developed as retail. >> Um
>> so again changing it to 3311 is moving it to the correct place in the ordinance. the proposed change on in D >> it's a good thing to have like some >> so if anybody's been ever been to the Cedar Grove shopping center in the last
25 years half of it is restaurants >> and there's one or two restaurants in the cafe technically they're not permitted I but it's it's uh I don't know why that would have been in there why a restaurant would not be permitted in a retail shopping center and the same
thing with health clubs for some reason if you look at this one dark section of our ordinance doesn't permit restaurants and health clubs. So, it's proposed to allow those uses that have been there for decades. I remember when Cafe Amichi
came to this board for um approval for seating because they they could be there um but they couldn't have sit down like you couldn't eat there, right? >> Maybe that was a parking variance perhaps.
>> I don't That was before my weren't supposed to have food in that shopping center. >> Yeah. Yeah. So, I mean I I don't know how business was a definition. Maybe service is a a dining in restaurant. Maybe it was before my time. I couldn't tell member of the planning board at
that long time ago. >> But nonetheless, the entire time I've been there, the restaurants have been in those particularly the Cedar Grove Shopping Center. So, >> yeah. >> Um that's why that's that that's the reason for that change. So now that they are there, does this
make them non-conforming? >> No, this the opposite actually. Technically, somebody can say that those restaurants that have been in there for decades are non-conforming uses >> not include come off the shall not include list. >> So that's the reverse. That's the reverse. Maybe I should read that. Sorry. Okay, I got you.
>> No, I should have explained that more clearly. >> No, no, it was probably Oh, principal uses shall be permitted subject to the following. Okay, I got you. And so, so, for example, where it says shall not include gas stations. >> Mhm. >> I'm assuming you would want that
restriction to stay in place. >> Yeah. >> I'm not sure we want a gas station. >> Oh, shall not. >> Proposed there, but but allowing the restaurants to to be there, I think, would be appropriate. >> And I got it now. Sorry. >> I should have I should have explained that. >> No, maybe the things the word shall not
included pretty clear. I just got I was just I was trying to find the place and I couldn't. I was up too far. So, it's sort of a double negative as it is. >> Yeah. >> And what you're doing is removing a restriction against the restaurants and
that allows the restaurant. >> There you go. Thank you. Thank you, Ted. Explain it far better than I did. >> Okay. So, here's the first, you know, in my opinion, first real substantive change that's proposed. Um, so our parking requirements for places of
worship um have a it's it's there's there's one requirement if you have fixed seats or pews. Um, and that's not proposed to to change. Mhm. >> But then it says in the event there that
there is that there's no fixed seating, the requirement is one parking space for every 15 square ft of worship area. And what that basically equates to, so typically a parking requirement for houses of worship,
restaurants, other assembly uses, the the typical standard by far is one parking space for every three people. Our parking requirement for houses of worship where there's no fixed seating is one parking space for every 15 square
feet. So what that means is it's really one it's assuming that the occupancy is one person for every five square feet. That is three to nine times higher than
the occupancy standard per the co per the building code. Typically, it's it's depending whether there's tables or chairs or not, it can be as high as one person, one person for every 15 square feet or one person for every 45 square feet. So, I think what
happened was I think they took that one person for every 15 occupancy and made that the parking standard. So, um so I think it's at least three times higher than it frankly should be.
Um, so what the language is. So I'm just going to read that second sentence. So with that in mind again, it's it's it's the typical standard is when there's for for assembly use from a code perspective is one person for every 15 square feet. So in the event there is no fixed
seating provided, parking shall be provided at one parking space for every three persons of permissible occupancy per applicable code of all proposed assembly areas. For example, worship area, fellowship room, etc.
So it's basically whatever the code allows in terms of number of people, divide that by three. >> That's your parking requirement. That makes much more sense. >> Otherwise, you have like a clown car situation, right? You try to drram as many people in there.
>> Yeah. And and it's and it become it does become confusing and we and we should have an ordinance that reflects, you know, again, if the occupancy that code allows that room to have a certain number of people and that's that's the number of people who are allowed to occupy that space. >> Yep. >> So that's what the parking should be
based on. >> Sounds good. >> Reminds me of Macedonia Church of God. a little. Yeah. And >> that had no fixed seats, I think. >> Yeah. And then and frankly, then it confuses the it honestly confuses the
board's review of the application because you're you're fighting against this. You know, you really should be concentrating on the facts of the case based and it should be based on it improves the standard. I'll just say that. Uh parkland dedication. Uh this is
proposed. This is really simple. Um such requirements were thrown out about 10-15 years ago. I mean if you had a residential development you could require them to uh provide a park or I think I think there's language in here about a payment in loo uh and those were
yeah dedication or cash contribution and those were those such requirements were thrown out so shouldn't have something on the books that the court said is illegal. makes sense. Uh this next one, this is um again
pretty simple. We have two definitions basically defining the same thing. Indoor recreation, indoor recreation facilities. So, I chose the more full the one more full definition and uh got rid of the one that's uh a little
less uh uh robust to the degree that I'm adding. It's adding roller rinks, pools, climbing, etc. That's because those activities were cited in the the the definition that's going away. So, >> I mean this is uh relevant, right?
because uh didn't you was you right zoning the when the Kmart plaza right with the bounce house thing that's a great use for that >> well here's the next proposal Mike >> yes >> here's the next uh I think you know substantive the second substantive thing
um we're proposing to add in the neighborhood business zones the GB zone and the HBD zone indoor recreation in shopping centers over 25,000 square F feet. I think that makes sense. There's a plenty of parking in those larger
shopping centers. And frankly, anything we can do to allow appropriate uses in shopping centers and keep brick-and-mortar retail active um that's a good that's a I think a positive. Again, editorial. Um, this is a typo. In
the in the R seven zone, if you have a two family home, you have to have 15,000 square ft. And then the description of the purpose of the R seven zone, it cites 10,000 square ft. So that's again, that's a typo that's being eliminated.
And then lastly, well, not lastly, the last one's the sidewalks, which is the the last the third substantive change. uh this this one here in section Roman numeral 12 uh a few years ago um uh we made a change relative to those
properties um the uh the summer the the senior citizen village that's bound by um schoolhouse weston uh weston canal and is that right no meters uh um that whole
that whole superlock is in senior citizen village zone, but not all of that zone is canal walk. There are about 10 random single family homes that I guess didn't sell to the developer and yet they were remaining
they were still in the senior citizen village zone. So they're basically these existing homes were non-conforming uses in a way. So, we changed the ordinance and basically said those homes that are rather than reszoning individual little lots, we basically changed the ordinance
to say those smaller lots that are in the SCV zone, they're subject to the use and bulk requirements of the R40 zone. Most of those lots are 1 acre, maybe a little bit bigger. Made them permitted uses, gave them applicable, you know, reasonable bulk requirements in terms of
setbacks, things like that. We left one of the properties out. That's that's that's the ordinance. That's somebody's home that happens to be in a in the senior citizen village zone, but it's a single family home. So, it's >> those are probably on Weston Road, right
to >> It's where the Girl Scout camp is. >> There's a few on there. There's a few on um on on Western Canal and there's a few on schoolhouse. >> Okay. >> I think this one happens to be on schoolhouse and and we left that we left that that property out. Is there any
home that is less than R40 in that >> less? Um I don't think so. I think they were all just about there were number of them that were just about an acre. >> Okay. >> Um but even if they were smaller um this this ordinance still helped them because it did again it made them it made them
permitted uses. Um, and if even if they were a little bit smaller, you know, they would be um it's a lot better to be in a single family zone where you're permitted. If you happen to need a bulk variance if you did some addition or something, >> um, it's a lot easier than having to go
to the zoning board and apply for a use variance on top of whatever. It's it it definitely helped them. Um and then the last one again this is uh the the third substantive change uh sidewalks.
So the first uh section basically said all applications before the zoning board or the planning board for site plan andor subdivision approval shall propose the construction of sidewalks along all road frontages of the subject property. The plans presented for approval by the
board shall propose such sidewalks and shall provide convenient and safe interconnection of sidewalks between parking areas and building entrances within the site and extending to the sidewalks proposed along the roads. >> I think that's pretty clear.
>> Yes, sir. >> Question. When you say roads, do you mean public streets or do you include private roads such as Atrium Drive? I I I I I would say I would say that roads applies to both.
And I don't think we have to specify that. I would think if if that would come in, we would it's private and public roads. >> Yeah. >> Oh, so Enoch do they'd have to put sidewalks? >> I'm sorry. What? >> Enoch do they'd have to put sidewalks along both sides of their road
>> if if if somebody was I I didn't catch the one word again, but if it's if it's along a private >> Odin dude. >> Yeah. Oh, the Odin Doom. Odin Doom. I'm sorry. >> Yes. Yes. I think that's what I thought. >> And they did. And they did. I met along both sides. They I think they did along
both sides. >> Pretty sure. I >> think so. I think they did. >> Yeah. We've sometimes taken the position that sidewalks along one side of the road, I think along schoolhouse, we've sort of said
>> we would like to have a continuous sidewalk on the north side of of schoolhouse place to be. >> There aren't any on the south side and we won't push for that. >> Mhm. >> Well, this doesn't I don't think this
doesn't change that. I mean, it the board the board in its discretion can modify this is this is making the applicants aware that it's required along all roads. >> If you choose in certain circumstances to to modify that, that's within the
discretion of the board. Um and then the last section should the board find it appropriate to grant relief from a above and I used the word due and due above due to unique circumstances. So, and I cited public safety. Maybe there's some unique safety
related reason that the board the applicant shall make an inlue contribution to cap to a capital improvement fund dedicated by the township for the purpose of constructing sidewalks along well. Here it says public roadways. So, I think we should say um oh no, for constructing sidewalks along public roadways. In that case, it
makes sense because we can't we can't construct it along private. The amount of such contribution shall be equivalent to co to the cost of constructing such sidewalks as confirmed by the township engineer and shall be paid to the township prior to site plan signoff/filing
of the subdivision. >> And I think Mark, the use of the word public in the second subsection B will result in subsection A being read as both because obviously it doesn't have a qualifier. So in the absence of the qualifier, it's public and private.
>> Y okay. No, that makes sense. I mean, the the only the only time I would I I mean, I've come to think about this very differently over the years and um you know, I was telling Mark, um my
commute home, I go down um World's Fair and there's no sidewalks on World's Fair and you know, you think, oh man, you know, used to be ware mostly warehouses or businesses and there's nothing there to walk to. But I see so many people walking on World's Fair and
they are walking to hotels and they're walking to you know the um you know where um Stateide happened to Abernat Plaza is um >> Cyclone Brewing. >> Yeah. Well well this doesn't exist anymore but >> a school.
>> Yeah. There's all Exactly. And and so those are things that did not used to be there. I mean, if you're talking about um Edison Charter, right, that used to be Mary Kay Cosmetics. They used to drive be you go past there, you'd be driving pink Cadillacs. >> No, I kid you not. So, um and then when
Mary Kay went out and they came in, uh it's just gives us the ability to like more um adapt to change. Right now you're on Wilson Road and you basically have a stream running alongside the road and somebody comes in there for something.
Fine, the waiver. I won't even make make contribution. Why? There's never going to be you can't. It's a damn stream. But other than that, you should probably have a sidewalk. >> Yeah. So, do I think this is good? Um
>> increasing imperous service in the town. >> Yeah. Well, I mean there's there's tradeoffs, right? Um, and I mean it it I mean then maybe that's a consideration for why you wouldn't have a sidewalk. I've certainly sat through applications where that was, right? Um, because they were right up against impervious
coverage. But I don't know. I think I think you can probably ask the applicant to scale something back or do something pvious or make the thing damn thing a little bit smaller to do a sidewalk because that advances the municipal um benefit. So um yeah, I'd rather have
that option at least. One of the potential changes that um may be in a future ordinance is uh for the uh town to consider changing the the uh the width of the travel lanes and parking lots. We have a standard of 26. The more
typical standard is 24. Um, so we we're going to I'm going to I want to go over that with staff a little bit before we put it in a draft ordinance, but you know, there may be situations particularly in those uses that are less, you know, have less turnover where we can rest we can reduce that.
>> Well, we're getting a waiver for it anyways. Um, that and loading docks. >> That's going to be that's that's exact we're looking at that, too. What's the exact language for that? >> That that that'll most likely be in the in ordinance number two. >> Yeah. No, this is good. And I mean, this
may be minor, but the way I look at it, and now I've been around long enough to be able to tell you that 10 years ago, Ted will back me up on this. Bob will too, uh, we probably had very similar discussions, and generally the prevailing wisdom at the time, and I
raised my hand as being somewhat guilty of of it, is um, it's simple. It makes no real difference. We know that we can't do that because you know they took Parkland dedication out so leaving it in doesn't. But now I've come to look at it
as 10 10 years from now I don't want to freaking be having this discussion again. So let's just do the easy simple lowhanging fruit. It it may it's easy for council to do and then we start doing other things. And it may not be in that order. Maybe we do something a little more meaty next. I don't know.
But I just wanted to get some of this stuff done because it's just I don't want to be here 10 years from now. God willing or not perhaps. I don't I don't know but um you know have it having that same discussion about you know little things just do it and get it over with.
Um so thank you Mike. My and my my goal because the zoning board right now is very busy. The next few months the planning board our agenda seems to be light. >> Um so this is kind of a good opportunity. Yeah. To to knock some of the This is when you do and when >> two years ago, three years ago when we
were buried >> Yeah. there was just no opportunity to get stuff like this done. So, I think we we have a little bit of a window right now. I would suggest we do >> by all means. Yeah. >> All right. So, what do you need from us? You need a resolution for this or a motion to >> I don't think there's no really formal
action. This will come back to you. >> Oh, no. No. I know that question. Uh sorry. No, go ahead. >> Could we just revisit the uh community residence and group home? >> So, I just have a clarifying question. Is it are we proposing that they are not
going to be allowed? >> No. >> And so yeah. >> No. So the way the the reason for this is that I believe that this ordinance was put in decades ago and the town at that time decided to allow community residences under these
circumstances. So if you're an RR3, RR5, or R40, you had to have five acres. Or if you're an R20, you have to have one acre. At some point after that, the state in the municipal land use law, and that that's the law of the state that
basically allows towns to have zoning. But when the state puts something in the municipal land use law, it supersedes local zoning. And the and the municipal land use law says towns must permit certain types of group homes. There's five or six categories
of group homes. I think one is again I said um uh group home for people with developmental disabilities. I think there's one for victims of domestic abuse and there's a few other category people with with head injuries. There's a few categories. We have to permit them just as we permit single family homes.
We're not allowed to have special more restrictive standards for those group homes. So that to the and this is that's what this is talking about here. So, it's basically it's taking on an ordinance that frankly we're not again we're not allowed to have more restrictive standards.
>> All right. Well, um thank you Mark for putting this together. This is a good good first uh first step. Um you don't need anything u from us. So, um I guess we'll close with any board comments. I only have very one quick comment and it actually has to do with
sidewalks. Um, I did write a letter on behalf of the planning board uh to council uh recommending um that uh the township sidewalk um monies be used to complete that
space between um uh what is it? NPR um or what was it? That may not be the right um acronym. Whatever the >> one on Davidson >> Yeah, the one on the one on Davidson in New Brunswick. So, you remember the people from Somerset Run said, "Oh, there's going to be that little gap
between where NPH NPH, that's what it was. Um, uh, and Somerset Woods and then maybe in front of her hers, uh, potato chip. Uh, and that would take you right into um, uh, the parking lot of Shop,
right? So, um, it was agreed um, that that was a good thing to do. Uh so um that should be that should be put on. Yeah, it was it was thought thought to be a perfect use for sidewalk funds because that little that little corner
where we'd be putting it actually does belong to Somerset Woods, but they they really can't expand there. And so it was like NPH or yeah, NPH will end. There'll be that little gap and then we don't we could probably have to get an easement from hers to actually go in front of
their property because we looked at it on the GPS and it the the the right of way does not allow a sidewalk, but um um Bob Vorlocker thought that they could probably get an easement from Hurst to do that. So um yeah, it was thought to
be a good use. So that that um should be should be good. Um, and I think we brought up another area where um, maybe on Cedar Grove, but that's a little more complicated only because it's county and you know, the township doesn't want to expend their funds and of course the
county doesn't doesn't want to expend theirs either. So, um, but um, thought to be good and definitely in front of Cedar Hill Prep to complete that, right? It was in front of Cedar Cedar Hill Prep to New Brunswick >> to New Brunswick. >> Yeah.
>> So hopefully that'll get done. I mean, it wasn't it wasn't disagreed that it was a good thing to do, but um apparently agreement on who should do it might might be stickier. That's the only only thing I have. Anybody else? Ram Ron, you got anything from council?
Anything on your mind? No. >> Quick one. I'm sorry to hold you up. I just want to see if anybody feels like I do. The uh tree trimmers that are trimming trees. >> Oh. uh butchering trees.
Do they have no accountability? Because what they're doing on Davidson, New Brunswick Road, Elizabeth Avenue, tomorrow, Cedar Grove Lane, they they just cut everything and there's no
regard to whether that tree, one tree is about 100 years old, is at least 50 to 75 feet off the rightway. I understand the need to protect the power lines, but
trimming trees is one thing. Butchering them is another. We require all these people that come in here to plant street trees. We make them put up bonds to make sure this landscaping and everything
survives. And these guys go right down the street. And as far as I'm concerned, it's a sin. I know you can't stop some of it, but there should be some accountability. Is there any accountability?
>> I'm assuming you're talking about they're they're cutting them away from power lines. Yes. And being >> overly aggressive. I don't know. I that's that's not something that I would I can really opine on whether they >> you you could check the shade tree ordinance but I
you know I wrote it so I mean now it's since been amended to make more money right per tree cuz when I did it was like 30 now it's 300. >> I could have sworn that there was a subsection in there that dealt with um licensed uh arborists. Now I see who
does it right? it's Aspund, it's uh Barrett or or whoever might they should be certified arborists. I believe they I mean I don't know if they if it's on a county road if the county has certain standards, but I don't I don't think
they're hiring like Joe Schmo Landscaping to do it. These guys are certified arborist, so you would assume that they're not taking more of the tree than they feel on a professional basis can be supported. Um I I can't assure you. I can't because I don't have a long
time since I looked at at 222 um subsection trees. Um but I thought I thought it was in there that they had to be licensed. Now, whether the township enforces that is another thing, but that's that's what I think is >> I think they're hiring a licensed
contractor, but I don't think the people doing the cutting are necessarily all of them are necessarily uh certified. >> There there should be at least like who'sever like maybe like I don't know
if I'm a worker in that crew um and Bill over there is the supervisor, right? and uh I just need to bring you into it, you know. Um you might be the certified arborist right now and I'm I'm got I'm wielding the chainsaw, but you're telling me where to go. So I assume
there's one person that's going to have to at least be >> I I'm not going to doubt you. I just see us losing all control over things that we put attach a lot of importance to during
hearings for for different applications and make people comply and then one guy goes down the street and it looks and it's total mess. >> It's all there is to it. >> Well, yeah. I mean, you could ask Bob, you know, for locker, ask him. But I I
mean I would look the first thing I would do is go on e-code and I would look at at our section on trees and see if it's in there. Uh if if it isn't then maybe it's something that should be added at some point. If it is then say
is this enforced and do we know that these people are coming in with a plan? Um it's a reasonable question. >> Can I just share a personal experience on that? So last year it was uh same thing on my street, right? I happened to
be home. So it was a favorite tree of mine which is right, you know, right from the sidewalk. I ran out. I was like, I had no idea. It's like, what are you doing? It's like, oh, we we have orders to, you know, it's too close to the power line. And it was a little bit
contentious. And so I said I looked and I was like, I don't think it's near the power line. And he goes, no, but it's going to grow. spot to the power line. So I said, "Okay." Um, I told them not to cut it. And they were on the phone. This went on for about 20 minutes, right? And they come back. They they
moved down. They came back and they said, "Well, if you don't allow us to cut it, we're going to come back another day and cut it when you're not home." So what happened, the resolution, I said, "Okay, come back." And I watched
them. So they did not like it was way on top. So you know I don't think there was any professional tree expert on that crew. >> So something to revisit. >> No it would it would be worth finding out on and I mean yeah if if anybody
wants to Bob if you want to like pursue that I mean I'm I'm all for it because I would like to know >> if maybe we need to amend that. Well, let me add another one that we have even less control over. Elizabeth Avenue where it goes under 287 by Elizabeth
Avenue School and that office building the guy's been trying to get rid of for a million years. So, it's going to turn into an affordable housing project. >> That's the triangle. >> Yes. when they last year about this time you could drive down 287 southbound and you
couldn't see Elizabeth Avenue in the school and the building a couple days after I did that then you drive down and every tree for a half a mile to Rotor Clip is cut in half and when I did any research on it
the owner of the building or one of the land owners or whatever it is finagal permission from the state to have the trees cut down so the people could see the billboard that we put that they put up on the property there. In the meantime, now you can cross that bridge
and probably look all the way to Shopright. >> Yeah. >> From 287 and then we're going to build affordable housing right there. There was a very extensive thick natural b barrier.
No need to cut anything. >> Yeah. And of course, we're going to ask the affordable housing when they come to plant trees. >> Yeah. No, I mean I I get it. No, you Yeah. I It's a That's very unfortunate. I mean, the billboard thing is probably
because, you know, it's a billboard and they want people to see it. It's unfortunate that that billboard got approved, but it did. I remember this big fight over it, but apparently it got approved. It shouldn't have but that was different time.
Anything else from anybody else? If not um I move to ajourn and Christine will be back when? >> What? >> Just trying to see if you're listening. May 21st. >> May 21st. Okay, great.
>> Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. May 20th. Sorry. May 20th. >> May 20th. Yeah. Okay, >> sounds good. I'm trying to think what's on that. >> May 20th is the next one. >> Okay. >> If we don't have a hearing, >> we won't have ordinance number two by then. But >> Oh, okay. He won't
>> by June. By June, maybe we'll shoot for one if we don't have hearing one a month. Yeah. >> One work session a month. >> Sounds good. >> Sounds good. Okay. >> All right. Motion to adjurnn. Second. >> All in favor? Have a great night.