with the open public meetings act PL 1975 chapter 231 adequate notice of this regular meeting of the board of adjustment of the township of Franklin's been provided board members applicant professionals members of the public please speak directly in the mics so
that our recording secretary can properly process minutes applicants and professionals please fill out the sheet on the table when you've completed your testimony thank you I assume everyone's computer is okay yeah
should okay Cheryl Betha here Richard branic Vine veros I think she's away actually uh Alan Rich here Gary Rosenthal here Robert Shephard here farz KH I don't see him
Michael Dy here Alia here shendo Singh here and chairman Thomas here uh we have a resolution 2025 zoning board attorney uh resolution we have a motion to approve I'm second we can do this say
all in favor correct yes we did that last night all in favor say I I post motion passed thank you all maybe uh wait till the end of the year he might have
no anyway hearing section today G eson zba 246 see variances in which the applicant constructed in addition to the existing house in which modifications were made
not previously approved at 435 wheeler Place Somerset block 347 lot 18 and the R15 that's carried to March six and notification will be needed next
application Sherry and William Schneider zba 2503 C variants which the applicant seeks to construct a 12 by 24ot storage shed at 6 at 48 Emerson Road Somerset block 392 lot 39 in the
R20 Zone that will be heard and do we have everybody present for that come on up to table so Mr chairman I'll just summarize the application um so this is a single family residential property in the R20 Zone um the applicant seeks to construct
a 12T x 24 ft storage structure um the application indicated that it's a uh prefab A-frame storage shed to house a classic car and storage of um Lawn Equipment U the required setback for a a
accessory structure of this size is 15 ft they're seeking a setback of 8 ft um in the tech The Memo from the technical Review Committee uh we included the um the sample or the um representative um
picture of what it would look like as well as the applicant's drawing of where the shed would be placed as well as um some uh exhibits if you will showing where on the property there's one aerial photograph showing where be approximately in a picture of the from
Google Street View showing its approximate location okay that Des well first of all we need to Des where in where we get both of you going to testify one both raise your right hands please testimony you're about to give truth the whole
truth and nothing but the truth shall help you God your mic turn the mics on turn the M turn green light I I do state your full name for both of you one at a time spell your last name for the record in your address
and we have a another member of the board William Scott Schneider NE deer Sherry Schneider CH NE de and your address for the record 48 Emerson thank
you and U as is what Mr Healey described ENT entally what your what your understanding of the application is and what you want to do uh is this for what what would be the primary use
for the shed uh my wife uh her dad passed in September and he had left her a uh classic car talk to mic move the mic a little foser um my wife's uh dad had passed away in September and he had
left her a classic card 1964 Galaxy 500 and uh some it's a car that he had restored and we need a place to keep it uh there's no uh
uh other storage involved lawn mowers gas um not gas no we have another smaller shed for gas um probably some lawn lawn tools and things like that other than the car that's generally just
for the usual residential yes uh items that people would put in or normally store in a garage yes absolutely nothing nothing flammable no the only thing would be the gas that's in the car where do you park the car right now
uh it's at her Stepmother's house okay so it's not there yet okay okay I would say that the yard the rear yard variance has what 18 ft existing and it's going to go to 17 ft
so that's basically a a foot difference okay same with the rear of that's the house anyway and then the Garage in the sidey yard there's any way it could
be efficiently made a little bit smaller cuz some of these are pretty um we did look at that and just as far as opening the doors it's a pretty big car and you know it's pretty wide it's it's a little
bigger than your typical car these days any uh other board members so you're hello oh I'm sorry right here no worries no worries um you're going to be when I I looked at
this I didn't quite understand it uh very well so I went and I I looked at the house yeah and this is not going to be 24 ft wide it's going to be 12T wide and it's going to go and you going to
have a garage door on the end to yes put the okay all right it's going to match um the Aesthetics of the house the angles of the doorway and things like that yep it'll be going parallel with our existing garage the garage now is just it's way too small for it
right yes right cuz there was the house there was the garage and then there was the the narrow space next to um next to where the garage is but correct I can see if you're going to put it that
way then it uh I can understand it we'll have about a 5ft Alleyway between the H uh existing garage the house and the new one and this garage shed okay and then between the two you'll
have you'll have um a door yes on the you have a garage door on one end and then there'll be a door on the side in the middle correct okay all right I get it now any other
questions from the board reason why it's not being placed next to the current garage well we just damn it want to have some access between the garages between the two um and if we want to reside the house I
don't want to put it right next to the house what's the proposed distance between the current structure and where you're going to put the shed it'll be it'll be 5 ft I just want to have have an ample walkway between the
two are there any other technical issues with this Mark no meets the criteria Mr Healey for C1 and C2 variants well I think
the I would think what the just ification would be would be a C1 to the degree that uh meaning a hardship um I mean the property is um I mean the house is located where it is um
on the property um and the property does get more narrow as as it approaches the street because it looks like it's at is it at the end of a culdesac no okay it must be on a on a on a on a bend in the road um because the the property kind of Narrows as it
approaches the street um is and did you look at uh let me so I'll ask you a question but have you looked at putting it in a compliant location why why couldn't it be put maybe further back on the property and then you'd have room slope right Beyond
right Beyond where we want to put it um and the backyard has a more of a steeper slope okay and what's um getting back there also is there also another frame shed yes behind Okay so I think it's like 8 by 10
I think it is okay so you know again I so I think you know if if if they're you know justification would be um would be a hardship situation because of the slope that was mentioned the fact that there's a shed existing behind it which
I think um you know indicates where the shed would be and I think frankly I'm sure the applicant wants to put the The Shed off of the driveway so they can access the driveway yes um so I think all of the those things kind of point to locating the shed in the location that
they're proposing it and that results in that 8ft setback also looking at at this the three of the variances are really close to what there's only one there's only one variance Vari on this one it's just a it's just a setback
variance for the sh the side setback yeah that's carried no the first one that's the one got carried yeah Mark I I have a quick question for you do you think
the 5 ft between the home and the shed uh is going to have issues with the building code for fire separation I I I honestly can't answer that because I I don't know the building code all I can say is um I'm not aware of that
being a requirement um at this size they they would need um both a zoning permit and a construction permit yeah what I so if it's a problem with the building code then that's a risk they're taking they won't be able to put it there frankly yeah I just hate to see you guys come
back if we could do that to yeah I but I don't know the code to answer that question so how how are I can't find it in the paperwork but how how are we on impervious coverage they comply this is the this is the only variant that they would need for
this and and looking at the aerial and the survey I mean I I it looks to me eyeballing it they're they're they easily comply it's very Woody you're aware that if as Mr Healey indicated either the zoning office or
the Construction office denied you your permits you'd have to come back to the board for a another application to place the shed somewhere on the property okay or they can put it in compliant location and they wouldn't have to go
before the board but if they if they needed apparently they they at the moment they don't seem to to be able to place it in the compliant otherwise they wouldn't need they need a VAR so just a matter of getting to the backyard backyard has quite a bit of room but it's just the way to slope isn't getting back
there okay anyone else we open to the public is there anyone out there who would like to ask a question or make a comment about this application so I all the neighbors have been served their notice so I see
there's nobody here so um we'll close to the public and entertain a motion I move that we Grant William and Sher Snider uh at 48 Emerson Road Somerset New Jersey the variant uh the
side Lot uh variant nated for them to be able to build a 24x uh 12 backyard A-frame storage structure on their property need a second second
subject to the condition previously mentioned I did Shand Cheryl beia yes Richard pranic yes Basim fos is it okay for me to vote I came a few minutes late but I think I got I think they just started talking right you came in at 7
34 that's up to yes is it is okay Eric it's up to Eric okay I'm sorry yes Alan Rich yes Gary Rosenthal yes Robert Shephard yes chairman Thomas yes congratulations thank you very much
good luck with the thank you very much we have to sign this correct no you don't no okay thank you okay Manu and V goyel zba
252 variant C variants in which the applicant seeks to construct a 650t one story Edition 37 jewelie Court Somerset it's so cute
okay who's here on behalf of whom and who's going to be for any everybody's testifying I'm the architect make sure the lights on folks I'm the architect fortunado and you are the I am vidu
goyel man are either both of you going to testify yes okay well I'll swear you all then Raise Your Right hands please testimony you're about to give us the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you guide yes yes
State your full full name spell your last name for the record and indicate by wh your um by whom you're employed and we'll get to your qualification when you start to testify uh it's Dan fortunado f r t n a t o and I'm the principal at
Fortune Auto architecture Manu goyel g y a l viy g y a l and you're both a 37 Julie Court that's correct okay Mr forado where's your business located at skilman
New Jersey will we need to qualify well if she uh are the going to say anything first they're going to let the architect talk first I will uh start off the conversation all right why don't you indicate sir your qualifications and
your credentials I'm a licensed architect in New Jersey Pennsylvania and New York I have a degree uh design from Ohio State University and a architecture degree from Drex University I've been practicing architecture for 35 years that's
fine uh the project that we have in hand here uh we have one variance that they are seeking for an addition that they need at the rear of the house um uh Mr Goyle will explain the reason the hardship but basically this is for her parents and uh they have a they have a
bedroom addition and uh some open uh family area that they wanted to add on to so the uh size of the addition is 6 50 square ft and that's encroaching by 3.34% on the impervious coverage so
that's what we're here today to uh to go over and the uh project essentially is just a one story Edition uh it conforms to all other setbacks and other requirements for the project it's just the uh the impervious coverage is over on this lot
could you indicate Mr fortunado what the additional square footage is going to contain for the record it's going to contain 330 Square 330 Square F feet will be a bedroom closet and bathroom and the 320 ft will be uh what we're
calling a salarian basically an open uh family area no kchen facilities I'm sorry no kchen facilities no k this now thank [Applause] you and this
will be constructed to uh complement the design of the house and the neighbor housing neighboring houses around it yes we're going to be using the same materials that are on the house right now and we uh pretty much all my designs I try to do that I want to make sure it
Blends in with the house I don't like to to make it look like an ey Source scking off the back but it is at the rear of the house though so the most you will see along the side of the house it runs along the same line or plane of the side of the house and then we're just going to again match the materials roof pitches Windows everything will look the
same as the rest of the house okay the only variance we're considering is impious coverage correct Mark yes that's correct any board questions um what is uh over here what what's
under the trees there you can't see the trees for the with the picture do you have any sheds or anything else back there no there's no shed nothing it's just grass it's just grass okay anybody else no it's pretty uh
minimal not minimal but it's not it's not an oversized addition by any means you don't have a storage shed that you don't use that we can ask you to take down to do something about impervious coverage no we don't uh is
there or have there been any issues with water draining where it shouldn't go uh we have not observed that now no we have not had any issues your neighbors would say would say the same thing I agree that they would say the same thing and I do have a neighbor here
Ron and he's just a couple of houses down so he's also here to testify if required the uh architecture drawings on our site plan on drawing V1 has a swell you can see the topography that it does swell between the properties so with
drainage naturally the when they built this development has drainage between the proper that does flow out to the street any other board questions no looks pretty good to me all right we'll open to the public is
there anyone who'd like to make a comment or ask a question about this application then we'll close if there's no other housekeeping issues I Mr and Mrs goyel are you familiar with the uh
recommendations from the environmental commission you both appear you appear before the commission a couple of weeks ago or at least they reviewed it they uh suggested the possibility of solar panels oh on the roof uh we saw that
suggestion in the write up but uh we can still take that into consideration for the Sol solar panels that can be done Mr Healey simply by a permit for the municipality doesn't require but we didn't ask for it I'm not I'm just
asking a question yeah somebody was to they would need permits to put it on on the you wouldn't have to come the question I was asking you don't have to come back to the board for that kind of that was the reason I ask okay yeah we don't have any plans to put solar panels at the moment at all thank
you I would I'm not an expert in solar panels or but I would wonder if there's even enough surface area on the roof to do more than heat one room that they are building I'm not sure it's efficient but
I'm not the environmental commission so I wouldn't hesitate to make that a condition I guess the reason I inquired of Mr Healey is if it needed a condition of the board then obviously it might make sense if they wanted to do it at some point in the future rather than
having to come back but since he advise the board that there is no requirement for board approval for solar panels and if they so choose to do so they can deal with the township foring sounds good all right we'll entertain a motion um I move that we Grant Manu and
vidu goyal a uh a c variant uh to allow them to uh build an addition under their house at 37 Julie Court um the variant will allow uh for
uh increased uh coverage uh to 33 37 what 37 ju 37 no 33.4 yeah 33.4
sorry uh percent you need a second I second um I to ask you before if the alternates are second and they're not voting are they allowed to second is I've just never had it happen before
I'm not saying they can't but I don't know that answer to be true uh I would suggest it be a voting member make the second so should we oh thank you sorry do this one just do what let's just can we get someone else who is I'll
second it thank you and we don't have to go back and do okay uh Cheryl beia yes Richard pranic yes Basim veros Alan Rich yes Gary Rosenthal yes Robert Shephard yes and chairman
Thomas yes good luck with it thank you very much you okay n Ys MSA limited partnership Verizon Wireless CBA 2421 applicant seeking a relief of a
condition concerning the fence material on a previously approved application for property at 156 SE of Road Somerset block 42412 lot 5.01 in the R40 Zone thank you
chairman Kevin Jones from Zubat Jones on behalf of the applicant uh New York smsa limited partnership doing business as Verizon Wireless I'll just refer to them as Verizon tonight uh Verizon was previously approved by this board um to
construct a 118 ft monopole uh disguised as an evergreen at the uh Cedar Run swim at M sorry is that better oh yeah sorry about that so the applicant was previously
approved uh received a conditional use vars approval and site plan approval to install a 118 ft cell tower disguised as an evergreen at the C run Swim Club of 156 C Grove Lane uh one of the conditions of the of the resolution and
the only thing that the applicant is here for tonight is to address one condition condition number three of that resolution uh required the applicant to um conceal the equipment so the uh Tower uh will be powered by electric and Battery uh equipment uh below the
compound below the um the tower itself in a fence compound area uh so the board imposed a condition uh by which Verizon would um uh install a 10t composite compound fence uh surrounding the equipment to keep the equipment out of sight so therefore no
equipment will be visible outside of the compound area so Verizon's proposing just a different type of fence uh it was difficult getting the materials for the 10-ft composite fence uh Verizon's proposing a 10ft chain link fence with slats that can be painted any color uh
we're prop and we showed photo Sim's Earth Tone which was the original condition uh we did see a report by the environmental commission a letter uh that opine that they preferred green so we did prepare some photo simulations that show the fence Earth Tone as
originally uh required but we also showed what it would look like green uh and again that is the only uh condition every other aspect of the application of the tower the site plan will remain the same uh with the exception of this requested change uh in the fence
materials that a is requesting tonight what's the current fence counsel uh well the current fence nothing it hasn't been built yet but the the fence would be a 10t composite fence
okay so this is so Verizon has not built the monopo since the board approved this back in 2017 that is correct I'm still not clear what the what the reason is for changing the size of the fence I I would
think the uh wood composite fence does a No Matter compared to any chain link fence with any color slats would do a much better job uh I hiding from lack of a better
term the facility and I'm not sure why well we're not changing the size of the fence it's really just the materials well I know but yeah well the slats can we show you the photo SS the slats that they perform the same job so the goal is uh to make sure none of the equipment the ancillary radio and Battery
equipment is visible from anywhere in the public now this this compound is going to sit in the woods anyway but it's going to be 10t tall the slats are going to be solid and you won't be able to see any uh equipment either way now we have photo simulations that show kind of side by side if you look at um the
the Sims I'm just I'm not concerned about seeing okay the equipment I'm concerned that you're in the middle you're in a very remote spot correct I don't know why anything needs
to be put there that would call any more attention to it like green slats uh there's a lot of uh yeah the green a lot of unsupervised activity in the area at different
times there I would think you don't want any anything that would call attention to the to the facility but agreed and we proposed it with um the Earth Tone SL that would mirror what the composite Pence look like uh we prepared an
additional exhibit because we received a report from the environmental commission just so the board can have another option to compare to uh both options would conceal the equipment uh in my opinion it's only my opinion the green because it's at the lower there tall mature trees there and typically
everything at that level 10 ft or above is brown because the trees you know the green the foliage doesn't really begin till a little higher up particularly with some of the evergreen trees uh in that area when they you know the mature trees there so the Evergreen seemed to make sense uh but we did uh as you know
to present tonight we wanted to make sure that we addressed the environmental commission's concern and and gave you the option to review it this is still a uh stealth Tower that's correct I remember uh an initial application this was supposed to be a state-of-the-art oh
yeah facility and indistinguishable once it's up it's a Delbarton model monopine so it's going to mirror a very large Evergreen well that's that's why I sort of question you know you make the facility like that then we're putting a
chain link fence around it uh I I'm I'm going to go with obviously whatever the board wants to do too but really not in favor of changing the the fense I don't I don't see a reason
for I think we had her it was established at the original hearing for a purpose I think the purpose is still sound and uh well that's my my opinion on it others can have may have another
one Mr Jones by any chance are there any pictures that Verizon submitted to this board back in 2017 that shows the proposed fence that you were proposing to build when you got the approval not you client got the
approval so what Miss Connelly prepared takes in consideration what that proposed fence was supposed to look like we don't have those photo simulations I'm not sure any simulations were provided I think that was a condition that was at toward the end of the approval uh initially it was approve it
was proposed I believe a regular chain link fence and the board um at during the time of the approving process uh requested uh the equipment be shielded you calling a witness I'm sorry you calling a witness this evening oh I do have a professional engineer here just
to answer some questions about the the Privacy slats and how they would look and shield raise your right hand please ma'am testimony your B gives the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth to help you gu yes State your full name spell your last name for the record by whom you're employed in your
credentials Colleen Connelly Co n n o l l y I work with sharer Design Group I'm located at 100 Corporate Drive site 202 in Lebanon New Jersey I am a licensed
professional engineer in the state of New Jersey Pennsylvania and New York I have a bachelor's of Engineering in civil engineering Ing and I've been practicing civil engineering for the past 30 years you're giving engineering testimony we accept the credential
so could you just describe the the difference between the composite fence and the proposed um chain L fence with lasts so the both of the fences you got to move the mic a little closer sorry about that um both of the fences would be the same height uh they would be 10
ft High the main um need for the fence from Verizon standpoint is to provide security for the site uh and additionally it is to Shield the equipment that's inside of the site which is why the height is 10
ft that would be higher than any of the equipment that's proposed at the base uh the composite fence is made out of a composite of plastic material and it would be a solid fence uh the what we're proposing tonight is a chain link fence
that has vinyl slots that are put in the fence and those vinyl slots can be pretty much of uh any color within reason uh that the board would like and that also provides the same level of screening around the picture any
questions I have a question uh would um it seems to me that the uh that the composite fence would be um uh very smooth um on the outside uh
and not would not allow anybody to say for example climb that fence to get inside of that area um unless I'm missing my Mark here uh the uh the chaining fence is not going to is not
going to provide the same level of uh safety and protection of the equipment people would be able to grab onto the chain link fence and make their way over the chain link fence to the inside of the um the area would you agree with
that well the um vinyl privacy slots actually are kind of woven in and out of the chain link in the fence so it does really make it a bit harder to climb because that vinyl slat is where someone would try to uh put their foot in um but
this is a 10t high fence um and additionally all of the equipment inside of the compound uh does have um alarms in it so if any one were to try to get into the equipment or anything like that Verizon
would be notified and the S is remotely monitored 247 correct yes that is correct any other questions I I have one um your your original approval was in 2020 is it
still valid five years later it's actually 2017 2017 or 2017 I mean is it still valid I thought they were good for three years with two one-year extensions and you have to request the twoyear extensions you can't just they
aren't automatic so to my knowledge no extensions were requested I know that they had to get some approvals and exemptions from from the county and there was some a lot of environmentals that went into this and the also the exemption letter from the Delaware raid
and Canal commission uh that expires in I do know in October of 2025 but to my knowledge no there wasn't ever an extenstion there wasn't we wouldn't request that that would come from the applicant side that's correct they would have come back you know to to
request that but there were a lot of delays for a number of reasons there was parking lot work and things of that nature that they had to work out with the swim club to my knowledge of course and finally you know they they they're ready to build and and this is when they realized
that the fencing materials were going to be difficult to obtain and things of that nature as they get into the fourth quarter I guess of the project yeah and from my perspective it's just making sure that we have the legal authority to to Grant the deviation if it's you
know the other thing was the parking lot were the parking lot issues ever resolved or is that to be done with construction of the cell phone tower uh if by the parking lot issues I think you mean the requirements that
were imposed by uh drcc that they had to remove right yeah my my recollection is that that had to be done along with this proposal okay correct and Verizon does plan to do do all of that nothing's changing with regard to the original
approval the sidewalk across the correct I have a question sidew that's the question that's what he's checking I just I I could say with confidence it's three years with two onee extensions I tend to
agree I think it's three and plus two the resolution was and I I don't remember it was a 2016 application but it wasn't approved until uh the resolution was was memorialized on August 6
2020 no looking resol one resolution was November 2nd 2016 the original one but there were there was another resolution I think that Mark's referring to as well the board adopted I'm looking at a
resolution actually dated March 16 2017 in which this board granted the D3 variants and site plan approvals um yeah I think they had to go back because I again I there's a resolution
here um this is what was provided by by Council so this condition was specified in this resolution 2017 resolution we wanted to make sure we we address this there's there's you know it's going back a few years there's there's two
resolutions in our file one is the one I guess the original approval yeah which was in 2007 and then they came back in 2020 can you have a copy of that Mark cuz I haven't seen it it's in the package I didn't see it in
the pack 23 what were the what were the uh photo simulations showing uh comparison of materials I I'm looking at them and I'm trying to distinguish what's the difference so it's the fences compound
is visible in PS1 and PS5 in ps1a uh that's a view of the compound uh looking facing toward the southeast and in that view that's a simulating the
composite fencing and then in view PS1 B you would see the tan um Earth toned privacy slots and then in PS1 C you would see the
Green Earth Tone not the green okay prepar the green ones we prepared the green ones but we have did not submit them as part of I only saw the one A and B um can I provide sure she didn't
pass and again we Pro we um created the green ones after receiving the environmental commission letter I have thank you thank you we can share we can share
if you but I think the fundamental question Still Remains um are we beyond the time frame or not because it's not matter of green or brown or anything if the the
schedule is expired then okay while they're looking that up PS2 the picture PS2 is a proposed compound um so PS2 is taken uh from what I would call
the parking area of the swim club that's closest to where the compound is proposed um that's also looking in the southeasterly direction in PS to the compound is not visible from that uh Vantage
Point um also similarly from PS3 which is taken from the main parking lot again looking back toward the compound uh the compound isn't visible from that view and then we did a
PS4 uh which was taken from Wexford way Facing East back to the compound so that's showing that it's not visible from that location um PS5 is taken walking deeper into the property and like looking back at the
swim club um facing just about du North and that's the other location that we're showing the uh compound from and is PS4 and five is that with the green or the brown so PS4 does not show the fencing it's not visible from
from WX way where that was taken there's just too many um very densely wooded between Wexford way over um PS5 if you look at PS5 a that would be
the originally um proposed compound uh with the um the comp U mixed compound fencing so not the chain link not the chain link from uh ps5b that's the chain link with the
Privacy slats that are in the tan Earth Tone and then in the set that I just provided you'll see PS uh 5 C which is the Privacy slots that are in the green tone so the compound is there and you
use it as yours um the nothing has been constructed yet but what what's that building with with the pallets and everything in front of it PS what the heck is it proposing these are
simulations uh no um PS2 P I think PS yeah PS2 so in PS2 what you're seeing there with the pallets in front of it that's an existing shed that's part of the swim club um so it's not yours it's not it's not Verizon's The Swim
Club I don't Mark do you have the 2020 resolution by any change I I do I I I um what it looks like and what it looks like is they I that they had to go back to the board relative to that um the part to remove
the parking so I think they got the approval in 2017 they must have um I guess in dealing with the drcc they the RCC imposed that requirement that that they remove the parking and then they had had to come back here for revised
site plan approval um and again that was that was in um memorialized August 2020 so that's the latest and it looks like it was in essence a well of oh they needed it
looks like they they needed they needed to come back here I guess to amend the site plan and also that removal required um some a parking variance that's why they had to come back so I'll I guess I'll ask our attorney what do we do at this point do
we adjourn the case and uh let the applicant come back and tell us whether or not the the thing is still valid or or because I don't think we want to dis want to dis dismiss it and then have
them have to kind of come back if they're still valid that' create some other impediments I think but just a Jing the case we can carry the application to the next meeting yeah I want to go on the
mic what's the one after that for years no so the next let me just grab this from me and it depends on the applicants availability as well um push out what is that March 5th or
6th it's March 6th yeah we we March 6th and then after that it would be um long time pencil in the April 17th car till March the 6th without further notice if Council will get me an
opinion letter or my office an opinion letter at least a week in advance of the hearing which should be next Friday um as to whether or not the approvals are still valid Mr Healey I don't as I said if board members have seen it I don't recall seeing the 2020
resolution and anyone's it's in one of the documents on the website I'm looking at it right here I can share you my screen if you want we have to check for our ordance no I don't think that was a good idea did you screen not a touch screen
is it no not a touch screen that's why it's not a touch screen all right yeah I think they were when we come back on the six we'll put you back in as number one one and I'll be in touch with you Mr B
between then and that um I'd also take a look to the extent it may not be in your office but maybe it price me who I think handled the original application think was St whoever I see something from them see if
they can by some chance there is a fence pictures back from the 2017 application take those out absolutely which might assist the board in taking a look at what they had suggest that it look like as it compares to Simply putting a bunch of color renderings of what you know
could look like if it doesn't exist it doesn't exist but if it does exist obviously it will assist the board accordingly understood okay March six that Mr chairman we need a motion to carry this
application um I I I move that we carry uh application zba 16- 000033 uh in the name of n y SM smsa limited uh part DBA Verizon Wireless
until March 6th at which time uh a decision will be reached uh as to whether the original granted variance from 2020 is still valid or 2017 um that what no further notice at
7:30 p.m. we're soon therea the matter may be heard without further notice thank you okay roll call Cheryl Betha yes Richard branic yes Bim veros yes Alan Rich yes Gary
Rosenthal yes Robert Shephard yes chairman Thomas yes Mr Jones just for the record yes of the Mr stanion was here for the 2020 but I did see a check somewhere along the way from Price
me back to the 2016 applications you might want to talk to both firms and see by some chance they might have it okay next would be Muslim Foundation zva 251 major subdivision in which the
applicants requesting the subdivide lot 36.1 into two Lots at 45 and 47 seated plane Somerset block 46809 lot 3601 and 3702 and the R40
Zone chairman can we get a motion to adjourn Mr before Mr for has a call just for the purpose of the record Mike Ford who is from Van CLE I'm sure will'll be introduced and I see each other on almost weekly basis in Hillsboro so it's a it's a change of
pace to see Michael somewhere else who's reper councel uh good evening Mr chairman Council and board members uh is m is this mic on or no no they're all there you go there we go okay now you can hear
me this is this is half the battle all right I'm getting there my name is John DeLuca the law firm s shock I'm here representing Muslim foundation for application zba 25 0000001 this is a major subdivision
application for the property located at 45 and 47 Cedar Grove Lane uh these Parcels are designated as block 46809 Lots 36.016222 Zone where houses of worship and schools
are permitted as conditional uses the existing conditions on the site are that of a house of worship as well as a school and a residential dwelling The Proposal tonight uh involves taking two lots that already exist and simply
redrawing uh the the lot lines to simplify it in the in the greatest simple terms possible so we we' this applicant has prepared appeared before this board on quite a number of occasions dating back to 2017 um to develop the property to uh
incorporate uh more property within it acquiring nearby land uh and and expanding but uh tonight we don't propose any additional improvements other than some minor landscaping and moving a fence which uh Mr Ford will
explain in a moment uh but it's important to note that the operations will not change the uses will not change it's simply uh we are only here to to shift some lot lines on the tax map so as I mentioned the the property does
include uh those two Parcels so lot 37.0 is where the house of worship exists lot minor is because this property as I mentioned was subdivided within the last 10 years your ordinance defines a minor subdivision or I should say defines a major subdivision as anything that is
not a minor and uh this project is excluded because it has been subdivided within the last 10 years the other item of relief we are seeking is a D3 variance for deviations from conditions or I should say deviations from uh
conditional use standards for a school in a residential district so your ordinance uh sets forth various conditional uses for the R40 Zone one of those is schools also houses of worship uh but I want to call your attention to the standards related to buffering uh
around the school uh the ordinance requires staggered trees uh we don't exactly comply with that uh in in our proposal and the reason is because we're not developing in that area a lot but Mr Ford will get into that in more detail so the only other items I want to put on
the record are that uh this has been adequately noticed and um all it has been published in uh it has been adequately published and and noticed to neighboring property owners and for that reason this board does have jurisdiction and authority to
hear this matter so I uh will wrap up my opening and ask that Mr Ford be sworn into to testify Mr chairman if I may Mr Dua just for the purposes of the record your client owns lot 37.0 to is that correct that is is accurate they do not
own lot 36.016222 subdividing into somebody's property they don't own that's correct takes all the fun out of it yeah you make a very good point Mr berstein so yes this uh this would be this major subdivision would be perfected upon the closing of sale other than Mr Ford is
anyone else going to testify on behalf of the applicant uh yes we will have uh Dr Jaffrey who sitting to my left testifies why don't we Mr Ford will move the mic between the two of them he's familiar with the move the mic closer raise your right hand sir testimony
you're both about to give is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth shall help you God yes okay um we'll get to each one of you in terms of names Etc when you testify Mr Ford you're going to be the first
witness yes yes all right would you in spell your spell your full name indicate by whom you're employed your credentials Etc okay good evening um Michael Ford FD licensed professional engineer and planner in the state of New Jersey
employed with Van CLE engineering 33 32 Brower Lane Hillsboro New Jerseys is our business address and I've appeared before this board nothing's changed since no it hasn't we'll accept it thank you still licensed yes okay all right uh
Mr for what can you tell us about the existing conditions and uh you know maybe clarify for the board while I was talking about with those shifting lot lines wait before you go any further Mr Ford you have a really nice looking big picture of all the paper do you think we can put it up on the screen I can can is
this where I can yeah should work what Christi I'm telling him the red light is on the TV it should be on you spent all this good money on a TV screen perfect there we go know you this sure okay so this is a color render I don't I don't think
there's enough screens Mike so just in case yeah Council can we mark this as A1 yeah why don't we Mark at A1 and have Mr Ford indicate what A1 represents we have uh three sheets as
part of A1 sheet one is an existing condition plan dated November 13 2024 the second sheet is the preliminary Subdivision plat dated November 11 uh November 13
2024 and then the third sheet is entitled amended buffer landscape plan dated November 13 2024 W they they're an accurate representation of the plans that were submitted as part of the application and
we have uh simply colorize them for the exhibits this evening and and I was going to go right to the last sheet the amended buffer plan because what you see on that is um the we why don't we wait till all the
board members [Applause] get Christin you got a copy exib a yeah we're going to actually we're going to mark this exhibit A1 A2 and A3 A1 is the front sheet A2 is the middle and A3 is
the back Mr Ford has previously testified as to what the three pages constitute so we're looking at A3 Mr Ford actually it went back to A1 so we'll just take it in order I thought that actually this gives you the
existing condition and what you see is um the existing uh religious facility and the school on existing lot 37.0 and it's um I'll say a reverse P
shape I'm tracing it now it's uh just over 7.5 acres in size and then the exist and that's owned by the applicant and then uh to the upper right hand corner of the page also fronting on uh
Cedar Grove Lane uh is existing lot 3601 and the board may recall I was here as part of application ZB 2209
for the um prior minor subdivision that took the rear 2 and2 acre portion of lot 36.0 one essentially and added it to the uh Muslim foundation's property
um and that um was perfected by deed um the Muslim Foundation owns that property and as part of a subsequent application after the minor subdivision was approved what we I think referred to as the cleanup plan we uh received board
approval to uh essentially clean up some of the um dead and disease um existing vegetation on that 2 and a half acres we acquired um and clean it up and provide some buffering along our Northerly property line as well as the easterly
property line which is the rear property line of 3601 and that that property line will disappear as part of this application and as um was U indicated by Mr DeLuca
it's essentially we're we're shifting that lot line just once again making and I'll go to to the next exhibit A2 we call it um and of course we changed the boundary line colors on this exhibit
just to challenge you a little bit the prior ones were yellow now these are I don't is it cyan um I'm expressing some frustration about why not just be consistent with colors but that's the rendering that
we've got and the cyan um colors show the proposed conditions so you see 3601 with the existing dwelling becoming smaller and an additional two acres of 3601 to be added to the Muslim
foundation's property making it just over 9.6 acres in size and I'll point out to the board that that substantially exceeds the bulk standard requirement for minimum lot size for this use which
is 120,000 Square F feet or 2.75 Acres so the 9.6 Acres increases the size of the existing conditional use that is the school and the religious institution and
I think that's important in substantiating the D3 variant uh similar to my testimony as part of the prior minor subdivision by virtue of the lands increasing in size and those lands
increasing in size to provide a greater buffer between the existing facilities and the surrounding properties um enhances that um buffer increases the the size of that
buffer in the in the in the last application from about 40 feet to over 300 feet and now you see in the front with the school um again the the area of buffering between us and our closest
neighbors to the north where the properties being added are substantially increased I think that helps to support part of the relief we're requesting with regards to the conditional use requirements and that is
a track perimeter buffer is required and I'll go now to A3 we'll see what color of the property lines are we're back to Yellow so now you can see a little better so you see the yellow uh property
lines and these are again represent the proposed condition um basically I'm I'm highlighting now in the middle of the page at the rear of this substantially wooded existing highlighted green vegetated area of lot
3601 that lot line uh is eliminated as well as the property line between us and existing 3601 is eliminated and as I'm tracing now this becomes the new line lot line so you see how these two acres
and the lot line shift substantially increase that buffer between us and our nearest neighbors to the north and part of the relief we're requesting is that in this area where there's existing vegetation and I hope you can see me highlighting it along our Northerly our
new Northerly property line and our new easterly property line there's existing vegetation and as was stated as part of the introduction of the application there's no proposed improvements as part of this application that includes even
the aspect of a a cleanup if you will that existing vegetated area will remain unchanged and what is um being amended or changed as by virtue of the elimination of this existing property
line is that part of the prior approvals included a fence in this area between the Muslim Foundation property and the remaining lands of lot 3601 by virtue of that lot line going
away the fence is no longer needed there and we're proposing to relocate that fence along this portion of our Northerly property line consistent with a fence that we uh had previously approve approved to install along this
portion of the Northerly property line and that fence is actually in so it's since we own it we're going to take it out and relocate it and then as part of the prior approval there was a buffer planting screening uh proposed along this rear
property line if you will of lot 3601 there no longer necessary because that lot Line's being eliminated and we're um going to eliminate that landscaping and there's no need to uh plant it elsewhere by virtue of the substantial um existing
vegetation to remain um Mr Ford can we go back to A1 for a minute yes so just for the purposes of the record the current property owned by your client is everything if you would
indicate what I think maybe an easier way to describe it is 3601 is this vegetated area where there's a substantial amount of existing trees and the existing dwelling everything beyond that the cleared area at the rear of
that existing dwelling lot as well as the school um the mosque and the um existing building in the front that was um previously approved for a daycare facility that's all part of the applicant's property
okay but it's not part of 3601 correct right yeah 3702 is the property I just described that's the 7 and 1/2 acre parcel existing condition and then uh
3601 is the wooded area with the trees and that's where we're taking two acres from that and adding it to 3702 so you've explained an awful lot here in the first few minutes of this and a lot
of it was very difficult for me to understand but especially the part where you we're talking about the different uh fence fences being moved and and uh a buffer area uh and that it doesn't have
to move and I got a couple of questions for you number one why are you talking about those things if all we're doing here is trying to move some property Lots lines around what is the importance
of your comments about the the buffering areas sure are we going to are we by granting these changes to these lot lines are we or also sort of by you
allowing this allowing something else to occur yes uh and that good question and the let me explain so that it's a miracle I was able to ask one after that so sorry so the the the fence that I'm
referring to is and I'm highlighting it now is this existing property line along the is is along is existing along the existing property line at the rear of 3601 it's on our property it's a security fence for our property okay and
that's why we're taking it out and then adaptive reuse of it removing it and moving it to our new property line but it has nothing to do it's sort of like an interesting story that really has nothing to do with what we're trying to do here well well the it it's
connected in the sense that part of our relief is that we don't meet all the conditions of the conditional use and we haven't since day one on this application and that's with regards to the buffering and the buffer requirement
of the town is 15 or 25 ft and that depends on whether you have a fence a solid fence or Landscaping so that fence was part of security but also tied into our buffer and that's the other aspect
that I described this evening which is by virtue of eliminating this property line that buffering is no longer needed so we're you want to remove it we want to remove it Mr Ford let me let me just explain why the why the buffering is
being they're proposing the subdivision and part of that is they're acquiring additional land that's now going to be part of their campus the the the entirety of their campus is required to be screened per the ordinance so by
gaining that additional land that additional land also needs to be screened with that triple staggered row 25 foot what have you so that's why they're before frankly that's why they're before this board because it's a conditional use standard that they're
proposing not to comply with so they're they're they're seeking subdivision approval and this conditional use variance and basically what you're hearing is that the justification for that is that at this point all they're doing is acquiring land they're not
doing any physical modifications not building whatever um you know last time they were doing you know some grading and removing some trees so the board required some Landscaping here what they're showing here is again they're acquiring that
area pretty much that area that's in green and they're showing you that that they don't need Landscaping a because they're not proposing any physical modifications at this time and all of that forested area is going to remain um
and along I guess the Northerly boundary they are still proposing some landscape screening so that mean I think that's the the nut application in the nutshell and how is the applicant going to demarcate the new lot that will be owned
by the church not by your client but by the church the the the dwelling the dwelling yeah when you refer that's another religious institution right you're you're proposing to take the existing 3 acre lot and leave a little under an acre for
the dwelling of the church how is there going to be a demarcation between the back of that property and the beginning of your client's property once they acquire that piece of the subdivision is granted well we would set property
Corners as part of the subdivision and I'm not aware of any other improvements in that area you're going to rely on the existing lands vegetation that's there yeah now there's something else that came up with what you said is
36.3 owned by the Muslim Foundation no that's not right and it's not A3 A3 that's the proposed new lot 36.0 3 so that area no is not owned by the Muslim foundation and that's going to remain
privately owned by by yet correct by um okay then my next question would be which uh he pointed out it's point9 Acres I I would expect to see a totally
completely conforming lot left from the subdivision it it's not a a a lot of land involved but if that new lot that's being uh created there is under the r
it's under R40 zone so whoever lives there that affects them if they want to do something uh impervious coverage on uh it should be if we have all this land and we're making all these new lines then we should have a completely
conforming lot left out of it yeah uh lot 3603 the proposed condition will meet the R40 Zone criteria it's over 40,000 square ft and as far as impervious coverage we've calculated
that for the existing condition on the smaller lot uh the total impervious coverage would be 12.6% % where 20 is allowed so there is some you know area for another 8% or so
that improvements could be done on that property well and frankly actually our goal would be to acquire that sooner or later too I it's just a it's confusing all I want to be sure is that it's it's a totally conforming lot in area uh we
say it's a a 1 acre Zone that's 45,000 Square ft but then we call it an R 40 40,000 square ft this says it's 0.9 I'm not doing the math in my head but I I think it would be irresponsible for us
to leave an even a slightly undersized lot as a result of all this Bob it complies it's R40 requires 40,000 square feet and this is 40,000 in change okay so 22 is
so an acre is 43,00 560 okay so our 40 40,000 is actually .9 Acres make it simple yes or no this will be a totally conforming law yes okay
yeah yeah the subdivision doesn't create any new non-conformities and the only remaining nonconformity is the rear setback to the existing school which was part of a prior approval and that and that that exists
yeah so totally comping that's fine stranger things have happened and slipped through before so thank you yep good question so I think that the application can be granted without any substantial
impairment or detriment to the public good or any adverse impacts to the township Zone you you know we're we're we're essentially providing the buffer uh by virtue of leaving the natural um
vegetation there and U I think just to State on the record in closing is that one of the uh comments in the TRC report which will comply with each and every one of them to their satisfaction is and there's just two that I need to speak to
one is that we agree to and understand any approval this board grants is with the understanding that there's no improvements to be made other than the fence and the land caping that we've described no improvements to be made to the property without coming back to the
board so if there's any changes in the institution um we'd be back with another site plan application if you will and again at that point um with regards to the um buffer nonconformity the buffers can be Revisited at that time when they
become important because improvements are being made and then the last I'll say is a housekeeping item there was a comment in the TRC report uh about and I'm highlighting it now on A3 uh a rectangle at the rear right hand
corner of the school that's like a storage container that was placed on site that'll be removed sorry I took too much time may I ask a question um so the not
your compound but the that building on what's it 3601 what what's that current use that's a dwelling as far as I my understanding house is it a I mean it says the owner holy virgin protection Russian Orthodox Church on your plans right a religious
institution owns it but it's uh used as a house but it's not it's a permitted use correct okay thank you it's a house well my my question was if it was going to be a house of worship it would have been a non-conforming use and
potentially an exasperation of that non-conforming use that's that's where I was going with that but no it's it's a good question we're aware that it's own by it but we've never known it to be used as anything other than a single family home Mr Ford you're not done
yet um I I look at the at A3 or yeah it's A3 and uh there's the the yellow borderline and there's also a dotted line inside of
the borderline is that is that the a setback line there's what is that yeah there's two there's two dash lines the thicker dash line closer to the property line represents that 25 ft landscape buffer
if you will the key element of the the reason we're here and the seeking the D3 variants that's the area along our track boundary as I think Mr Healey put it best where we're we're not proposing that buffer but technically it is
required and the other uh lighter dash line further into the property is the building setback line okay that and I can see the the building setback line uh
appears at the at the back of the property I don't and then I I guess I do see it now on on the other side and the other side is the buffer okay I got it confusing any
other I guess you're done with I have no further questions for Mr for this witness yeah I I'm going to try and simplify this for my own thinking What's Happening Here is the um is your
client is buying some of the land that is in uh 3601 it's buying both length and width of that line
correct is anything else happening no you talk a long time to get to that point at at at this time correct correct correct I guess then it in light of those comments it would be maybe
appropriate to mention too uh at some point recently there's been a sign on the property office space for rent that would be in
my my thinking I would think that is a uh not approved use for purpose of the record sir State your full name spell your last name and your relationship to the applicant ibal jaffre JF I first name
iqb my relationship to the entity is I'm the chairman of Muslim Foundation you've heard the question from the chairman about the sign yes have the the sign is for uh the rent for the daycare not the plane office just the
daycare okay but it's a commercial sign that advertises office space for rent so it will be removed because this is the old sign and we have uh asked for the
rent for daycare not to any commercial office okay just Crossing all the te's and a good te to be crossed thank you so um Mr Jeffrey since you've been sworn in and and we've begun questioning
you you mentioned that you're the um chairman of the Muslim Foundation um can you just you know briefly go over uh what uses do exist on the site focusing on the two buildings towards the here the users are place of prayer which is
mosque and for worship and we have a school in the back okay and now this expanded area uh towards the north this new land that you've acquired over the last couple years and the new land that you're hoping to acquire do you have any um specific intent or plan to use that
land in any particular way at this time no sir okay and do you understand that if you were to develop that plan and change the use of the property in any way or improve the property in any way that you would have to come back before this board yes sir okay um I don't have
any further questions for Mr Jeff anything from the board it's confusing but that's it that's all open to the public if there's any public who want to
ask a question looks like we're not getting anything there so we'll close anything want to say uh I'll just uh reiterate that the the relief we are seeking is a major subdivision appr approval and the D the D3 use variant so
that's a deviation from conditional use standards uh as we've articulated probably over and over again in many different ways um hopefully not too confusing but it's that buffer requirement for the school so uh every school in Franklin Township that's
located within a residential zone is required to have a vegetation buffer around the property obviously you've heard this plan explained exhaustively we don't comp with that standard for a conditional use we are deviating from that standard so we do require the D3
variant so it's the major subdivision approval and the D3 variants no other improvements no changes to the use Mr DeLuca your client has no problems two conditions one that you'll provide the zoning and planning office with a copy
of the deed as to the property your client is acquiring from the church prove that they are in fact the owners and the second is if you have any client has any intention of touching any of
that wooded area in the buffer that they're planning on currently using without planting one they're going to have to come back before this board to deal with the buffer issue absolutely the only caveat that I would request in articulating that condition is if there is a hazard tree I would hope my client would be able to remove it without
coming back before the board so you want to have him indicate on the on the map what the hazard tree is and I don't know that there is a hazard tree I I just you know in uh in reading through many tree ordinances throughout the state of New Jersey I
know that there's often much time at the at the firm I sure do uh but I know that there's often exemption for hazard trees and in the event that there were one discovered uh rather than waste this board time or my client's time and money yeah I mean I would say I would say that
in a way that's really not even the board's jurisdiction we do have a tree removal ordinance um trees that are if if it's if it's there's a hazardous condition they can they can seek approval for that subject to the Hazardous condition if they
decide to clear cut all the trees back there because it's a hazardous condition if it's exempt under chapter 222 then the ordinance already covers it otherwise they're subject to you know the tree ordinance and the site plan ordinance and everything else so the answer is subject to a hazard tree issue
your client understands it any change in that buffer will require a return visit relative to S absolutely whether they develop the property or not yes and obviously the third condition is any change in the condition of the property required board
understood okay any other issues any board comments or anything from uh Mr Healey or our attorney then we're able to entertain a motion
okay um I move that we Grant the Muslim Foundation uh a uh major subdivision variants uh under zba 25-1 uh which will allow uh the
applicant to subdivide lot 3601 into two Lots at 45 and 47 Cedar Grove Lane uh block 4 68.0 n Lots 3601 and
3702 well I think it's actually going to be 3703 and 3603 is that the proposal that's the ones that's the new ones right uh along with a D3 variance and Technical and preliminary
and final site plan approval subject to the three conditions previously agreed upon a second uh okay yes Richard branic yes vasim verdos yes Alan Rich yes Gary Rosenthal yes
Robert Shephard yes and chairman or uh Robert Thomas yes thank you very much motion to adjourn move second all in favor I
meeting