we are 55 on on my G tonight all right it's 6:30 and the Hannesport Township joint land use meeting uh for March 5 2025 have to call to order on Tom McKay um we'll have a flag salute
please 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 uh for anybody who's in the audience tonight I'm going to go a
little bit out of order just for courtesy the JDEB Mourn Highway LLC matter will not be held tonight because of technical reasons we we'll get to this on the regular agenda because there needs to be a motion to adjurnn but the Patel matter
to pull u a bulk variance issue will not be held tonight at the applicant's request for adjournment all right so returning to the uh agenda Paul would you read the Sunshine Law notice for this meeting was
published in accordance with the Open Public Meetings Act all right and we have uh our standard no new business after 10:30 p.m rule we will not start a new matter after 10:30 we'll finish matters after 10:30 that has started
before that uh but nothing new after 10:30 uh next we have the swearing in of a uh a new uh member not really new but it's a uh reappointment uh Mr
mai um you are appointed by resolution 2025-6-1 um as a uh class 4 alternative number three for a 2-year term uh to December 31
2026 so please be sworn in by the clerk solicer raise your right hand please do solemnly swear or affirm that you support Constitution in the United States Constitution of the State of New Jersey
we will bear true faith and reason to vote the government established in the United States and in this state under the Mission people we will faithfully in particular your abilities on begone i do thank you okay welcome
again um All right we have a case A23-06A JDEB MR Highway LLC as I said before will not be heard tonight uh because of technical matters is there
anything else Bob that we might put on with regard to that for the uh German all right so can I have a motion to that effect second okay we'll do a roll call roll
call mr bradley here mrs dwy yes mrs lutton yes mayor Gilmore yes mr novarita yes mr murphy yes mr holden yes miss Costco yes and Mr mckay yes all right the next matter uh will
require a similar type motion case uh item B on today's agenda case 24-22 yogish Patel uh it's a bulk variance for pool um by email
uh dated today um Mr patel requested that the matter be adjourned until the April 2nd 2025
meeting um and Mr kingsbury I don't think that he needs to renotice for that now we need a motion to continue the table to notice record okay can I have a motion in that regard
so moved second second roll call mr bradley yes mrs lugen yes mrs tory yes mayor Gilmore yes mr novarita yes mr murphy yes mr holden yes miss Cost yes and Mr mckay yes mr mckay can we back up
for one second please can we go to roll call oh did we did I miss roll call i'm so sorry yes we can go to roll call mrs tory here mr bradley here mrs leen here mayor Gilmore yes here mr dakochi absent mr
novarita here mr c murphy yes miss Costco here mr holden here mr r murphy here mr mai here mr mckay here all right uh C matter on uh the case on the list tonight on the agenda case
25-01 Frank Palante LLC this is a use variance for single family homes uh Jonas Singer good evening good evening nice to see you again uh please proceed mr mckay I believe um 49 yep
[Music] good evening Mr chairman members of the board uh Jonah Singer Leslie Singer appearing on behalf of the applicant F palente LLC first I thank you all for coming out tonight i wasn't sure if uh we were
going to all make it out here but I do appreciate your your appearance um this is an application uh similar to what was previously presented but a lot different um we have come before you this evening
requesting a use variance to allow for four single family homes to be constructed on the lots that are part of this application as you may recall one of the lots that was previously the subject was a uh group veterans home uh
that we proposed and uh because of its location I I believe the board felt that it was not suitable for a veterans home to be constructed on a lot that uh was proposed so Mr plenty who remains under
contract to purchase this property has uh redesigned his application he uh the the lot that was previously the subject of the veterans home would now be a single family home and he is
proposing a private drive to allow for access to three additional lots uh that are uh shown on a concept plan that has been prepared by our engineer we understand that this evening is uh
strictly for the use variance uh to permit construction of single family homes within the PO zone uh we understand that upon approval we would come back for subdivision and site plan and deal with the engineering uh issues
uh raised um well some of the engineering some of the planning issues raised by your planner um I do have three witnesses this evening mr pente um Mr romero our engineer and James
Miller our planner um I assume Mr kingsbury you'd like to have those sworn at once [Music] i do Mr singer before you proceed I have a question i want you to answer what in
the process of your other comments your your application uh says on page three I believe it's page three page that this is going to be a dedicated street am I correct that was the
original concept um that the street would be dedicated to a township um but since then after consulting with your planner um and our engineer um it was suggested that we create a private road
owned by the owners of those three lots we would form a homeowners association that would maintain the road um the snow as well as the retention basins that are necessary uh for the
project uh we've designed we've shown two on the plan two detention bases on the plan but our engineer believes other you know that he may be able to uh avoid one of them but it's really subject to uh site at site plan review and and
engineering the site all right I just want to clear up that what I saw is an inconsistency between your app and the original plan that was submitted the original concept plan that was submitted did contemplate a road dedicated It's a
township it's now a private road uh that would be owned by the association the three the pre the three properties that uh would benefit from that uh from those improvements all right i'm sorry to interrupt you no go ahead no
problem mr plankton you're sworn yes uh would you state your name for the record frank quante uh what do you do for a living uh I'm a builder slash flipper i guess flipper is the easiest way to
But for this application it's your intention to uh build these homes for sale to third parties correct yes and you are under contract to purchase this property i am and is it am I accurate in reciting that
the application has been amended a bit to provide for a private ride private road to support the three lots that are being subdivided yes and the one lot is a standalone lot which was the former the proposed site for veterans home is
that correct yes um you understand that the application this evening is to is to request a use variance to allow the residential construction within the PO zone yes I understand it's just a use variance not
a uh approval for the the plan and that we should this board agree and approve the use variance you're prepared to submit a uh site plan as well as a subdivision plan for the for this site yes um how long have you been building homes
uh building about seven years in the business almost 20 years now and really have you had experience within Hannesport building yeah yeah I've done a few in Hannesport okay um Okay i don't have any other questions
of this with any members of the board thank you Mr romero why don't you stand where you are hopefully can you Will this pick him up or this there's a microphone
there's a microphone [Music] [Music] my name is Sam Rero i'm the civil engineer for site with SR3 Engineers i am the uh supervising engineer i'm licensed in New Jersey and Pennsylvania and I also have my professional planners license in New Jersey i've testified
before about 50 boards in New Jersey including this board you'll be accepted Mr thank you thank you Mayor now would you briefly describe uh what is being proposed this evening i'll pull out a uh aerial just to in case anyone's not familiar with the site
i'll very briefly cover where the location of the site why don't we mark that as A1 it's I've marked it as exhibit applicants exhibit A1 property is bounded by Route 38 uh it's inter intersection Route 38 and L Ridge Road to the east is the paper street of
Sandra Lane it's wooded right now to the to the west is a uh doctor's office and to the south is the R1 zone with the Laurel Ridge development the proposed application before you this evening is for four single family homes three of them would
be part of a subdivision on the east side of Laurel Ridge Road and on the west side would be a standalone single family lot that would not would not change its property lines we that's known as lot 7 block 163 lot uh 003 lot
7 the property would be served by a shared driveway shown off of Laurel Ridge Road so three of the lots would gain access via the shared driveway after discussions with township professionals uh we have shown the plan
to have a curve shape to help break up the view from Lawler Ridge Road and help uh also keep some more wooded areas along Route 38 the property although we do not have a site plan design a detailed site plan design we will should this board act
favorably on the application will prepare a detailed storm water design utility design and grading plans but this plan is uh our best approximation of the location of stormwater basins and some of the other engineering as far as
clearing for the trees uh we are open to some suggestions on how uh these these homes will be located i can tell you that from a stormwater standpoint as an engineer I want to make sure that for this part of the approval process I'm
showing something conservative conservatively large uh when we get to pencil to paper on the stormwater design my hope is that we can either eliminate one of the two basins or at a minimum make them smaller new Jersey does have new storm water regulations coming out
this spring so we have to kind of factor that in they never get smaller with these new regulations unfortunately the bases don't get smaller so we just have to leave ourselves some room and that's what I've tried to do all right so just a question so you've got a proposal to
make the new subdivision six lots so the subdivision it would be a four lot subdivision with three homes on the west side that home would remain so there's four total single family homes we're showing five lots on
the east side because one lot would be the basins and the shared driveway so that would be a utility lot with no homes all right and which basin if you know might you eliminate we will again
we will try try to the basin to the south closest to the neighbor and that if you didn't use that if you didn't use that for a basin would that land just become part of the the next
lot over lot number house one yes okay all right i'm sorry continue please no it's good questions thank you u Mr mayo we don't have anything further um can we review
um planners letter well sorry you want to that's A2 so the application of A2 is simply the site plan you had before you this evening well let's a not site plan but a the zoning plan it's
titled zoning plan thank you um with respect to uh the Taylor Design Group's letter of February 27th 2025 can we just go through that a bit and um try to respond to some of the questions uh so we can provide as much
information to the board as we can if Mr chairman wants yes happy yes okay so as far as and I'm referring to second page B1 I'm sorry third page B1 this five pages deal with uh planning and I have Mr miller here this evening to testify
with respect to planning with respect to the third page general comments um again how how would the the private driveway and the bases be maintained who would own them the homeowners association for the three lots would
maintain the basin and so they would uh create a small association amongst themselves uh to plow and maintain the basins as required plow maintain the basins yes that those would be the main
responsibilities perfect can I ask a couple of questions as long as we're focusing on the road um to what design standards will the road be constructed the road will meet the New Jersey residential site
improvement standards and well I guess we're going to share a driveway there is a there is kind of a rural driveway section of the RSIS that we will meet right and the um it appears on your diagram just just from you know just
measuring it out that this road will be more like the rural driveway than a dedicated road correct and and when we're in discussions with amongst our team and with the municipal professionals having a municipal road
that the that Hannesport would have to maintain and snow plow for just three lots seemed like a little excessive we thought that the better route would be a shared driveway does the RSS standard require curbing on this road no what
about sidewalks i don't believe so and are you proposing sidewalks or not we're not proposing sidewalks for this for the zoning plan uh what are you going to do with respect
to mail delivery garbage pickup recycling pickup since this is not going to be a dedicated street so that may be detailed i can give you some of the engineering part of it uh the road would be designed to
handle fire trucks to handle uh garbage trucks who would be using the site as far as the details of that I would have to defer to uh others on that all right mr singer can we address since everybody's sworn in can we address that issue now so we don't forget about it
going down the Mr chairman if I can just in terms of the mail um the US Postal Service has issued directives they will not do doortodoor for new developments they are requiring gang cluster box units so I would anticipate that there
will either be one cluster box out on Laurel Ridge Road or perhaps three individual mailboxes right next to each other that really is completely the jurisdiction of the local postmaster and may they determine where they go on any
residential um project because this lot and we talked a little bit about this during some of our technical reviews um the intent here is that this will be a shared driveway and
that trash this is common in more rural large lot areas that you see in Medford Morristown Shiman Tabernacle where two lots sometimes three lots or more will share a single drive the trash is brought out to the public right away and
the trash trucks would pick it up there and I think that may be something appropriate that may want to consider it and reflect that as a reminder on the application or the alternative I assume the homeowners could retain their own private hauler for absolutely for for
pickup yeah the association I'm sure could have it's a long way to haul a couple of recycle bins right thursdays to uh to the to the to the other street correct okay I'm sorry continue okay please
um you have uh item three well okay so the zoning chart would be revised to set for the R1 standards but you've designed this in accordance with the R1 standards correct yes and why did you do that we decided the PO standards aren't quite
applicable to a residential development so our choice was to to meet the standards of R1 because that's the adjacent zone and that's the neighborhood it's located and so the bridge development behind it so to speak
to the south is in the R1 zone yes and what would be the approximate sizes of these lots as proposed the minimum lot size is 20,000 and these lots would probably about 30,000 or more especially if some of the lots are going to be including some more of the wooded areas
but uh none of them are less than 30,000 ft except for the one that's to the east or to the west correct i apologize yes for the subdivision the the the lot to the left is almost exactly 20,000 ft maybe
slightly less okay so you need a variance for that too yes yes this is like 19,000 and change 20,000 square feet short yeah i'm sorry all right just just trying to keep track of what you need
um and then you'll show number three showing the revisions to the to the yard setbacks for Route 38 we'll comply no problem number four do you have proposed architectural plans that we can show to the board
these are conceptual plans i'm not an architect but we received these from Mr palante's architect this is some of the prior homes that he has built yes so and they within within the obviously the bulk standards of of the lot correct yes and my understanding
is they're similar size to the other the other houses in the neighborhood okay and do you know the approximate sizes of these homes no I don't know okay i can ask Mr blunt mr blunt all right how what size homes are you proposing uh these homes are
approximately 2500 to 3,000 ft all right mr pi while you're up um on I don't know what we're calling it the the standalone lot what are we designating that as a particular lot number four or we calling it lot seven because that's the existing lot number it's lot seven
but it's house four on the diagram it's also a lot seven on the east side existing yes we're calling it one two three on our side but then on the uh All right well I'm going to call it the lot for house four yep okay cuz that's what
it's labeled as on your on your plan um I guess the question is to uh to uh address in advance potential variances that you would need for setback side front lot front yard side
lot um are are you going to be um are you going to be sort of designing the house within that box yes that would be the plan is is not requiring any additional variances because of setbacks uh find in
in brief conversations uh with Sam and my architect were a we have a a house that would fit on that lot within the setbacks uh required for the the R1 zone and that's the house you would offer on that lot yes yeah it wouldn't be any smaller than than the other ones it
would be very similar to the the other ones on the other side so um you know in in look and um it's not like it would be a small rancher and then on the other side would be you know 2500 foot houses it would be very similar to the other ones right i understand um related is
the issue on this lot for house 4 same lot um looking out pool putting a owner buys the lot from you then comes back wants to put a pool in um difficult to
squeeze a pool into this lot um well it's it's recommended uh by your planner that we it's sort of the you know the criteria for the R1 zone so that purchasers know what what what
they're buying and what the criteria is going forward if they need to do any improvements uh that may not require variances i don't know whether there's a pool you know there's room for a pool on that lot or not i or anything else for that matter the point the point being
that this particular lot of the four building lots is particularly small and constrained by so that almost any variation from outside of the box whether it be a porch a pool well addition is is going to have to come
back uh for for a variance and I guess the question is And I'll ask the planner maybe to jump in on this do we talk about that now as a condition or do we just ignore it and a
year from now or two years from now we deal with the variance i think that and I can um since we're just here for use variance tonight once the applicant assuming it moves forward for full subdivision approval which would be
required um at that time they will probably have a better chance to evaluate what the exact architecture is what that configuration is it may be that they don't have a side entry garage and they have a front entry garage and that leaves a little bit more on that
side if for some reason at that time um the applicant wants to move that home forward to the board can as part of that subdivision consider any variance request deal with the variance at that point to adjust the house as necessary
on the site plan application you raised the point that any really private rear yard space given that side garage entry would be limited um so they they may want to give that some consideration whether that home can get moved toward roof 38 a little bit so there's a little
more functional backyard that they can adjust prior to subdivision well it's good that we're talking about these issues now yeah and I think that that standalone lot would probably be the only one that we would have that that issue with because the other lots are pretty uh pretty big i I I would agree
agree with you yes that's why I raised this a lot issue i'm sorry please continue Mr thank you yeah um Sam with respect to paragraph five
with uh existing wetlands do you have an opinion as to whether there exists wetlands on the site uh yes the in our site inspection for the site we did not know not notice any a pretty detailed inspection we didn't notice any evidence of any wetlands on the site but you will
have a letter from a environmentalist to to confirm that so our thought is to provide a wetland scientist opinion on the on the property and provide that letter we usually use a gentleman named Joe Arsenal who's a expert in in South Jersey okay uh with respect to the
vacation of Sandra Lane um that would have to come from council correct yes and that's not part of this application but we were requested to show what that could look like should it be vacated on this plan but that's not part of this application now should it not be vacated does it affect the size of the proposed
lots that are being proposed it would not adversely impact them it would make the lots larger so without vacating that street and adding the land half the half the land to this side uh it would just make lots
but this lots already conform or exceed the conformity of the R1 zone correct yes correct um as far as existing utilities can you advise the board of what uh utilities presently support this property yeah the
application will include public water public sewer uh gas and electric and that will be shown on our detailed site plan should the board act favorably for for this use variance where does the where is the u the main at this point for sewer is it in Laurel
Ridge Road in Laurel Ridge Road yes for both water and on the utilities these uh the electric cable part of it uh are they going to be all underground yes okay
the uh driveways would require an easement uh onto the road owned by the association correct be there'll be cross easements between the lots yes uh sidewalks um that will await site plan at that point is the weather
existing sidewalk on lower road and yes but there is an existing sidewalk on lower existing sidewalk on lower road yes i saw a tree was down today right there so hopefully that sidewalk is okay okay um
is there sidewalk on both sides yes on Laurwood Road yes and the sidewalk goes out to 38 yes good um number nine um your proposed driveway will comply with RSIS standards yes and
it will be adequate for emergency vehicle during uh site plan approval we will show a uh emergency vehicle turning simulation and the lots are large enough to accommodate the on-site parking for the number of bedrooms that are being
proposed correct yes yes okay um number 10 can you Yeah um I think we can work with Mr taylor about maybe um adjusting a little bit of the geometry of the shared driveway that that should be no problem okay uh number 11 the
fence encroachment south on proposed there exist an existing encroachment onto this property the homeowner on Sandra Lane adjacent to the property there is a fence that encroaches 4T onto what we're calling lot two uh we would probably just have
to provide a uh an an easement or or something jonas can probably help with that but uh there is an encroachment of an existing fence so we either allow it by the easement or we ask that they remove it or relocate it okay so it's not it's not encroaching from this
property to the neighbor it's the neighbor's fence encroaching onto this property yes okay um as far as buffers paragraph 12 what what is being proposed and what what can we do to increase buffers along 38
yes uh we show uh we've done our best to show as much buffering around the development as we can on all sides uh along Route 38 uh there there's a significant area where we're saving trees um and along the south property line uh we're saving significant amount
of trees as I mentioned Sandra Lane is a wooded is a wooded area and we're saving additional uh wooded area adjacent to Sandra Lane in addition we've uh the board professionals has have asked that we if we can move the basins back away
from u away from Laurel Ridge Road to provide a little wooded area adjacent to the road uh again I can try to accommodate that i don't I don't see that being a problem what about the basin uh to the south uh what do you think you can do with
that so the bas as I mentioned earlier I try to be conservative on the on a concept plan when I do not have detailed engineering design when we put pencil to paper we will try to eliminate that basin and at a minimum we make that basin smaller realizing that basins haven't
been designed um and you might wind up with one basin not two what are we looking at in terms of basin depth and proposal defense or not i know this is for the future but I like to hear hear you on that right now we would show a fence and as far as the
depth we don't know yet are fences mandated for basins no but usually a a fence is a is a good idea i think Mr pl would want one will these be basins or swailes basins basins and where's there storm
water for lot for lot uh that's a standalone lot that probably will most likely be part of a building permit and is not included in the basins for the three lot subdivision will that be part of the HOA no well
that the current plans that it would not is the uh calculation of cost for maintenance of the basins and
um I assume street as well has that been calculated to see if that's potentially unduly burdensome on the three lots in other
words it's a three lot group that's going to pay for all the common costs um that's not a lot of houses to spread it around so there have been estimates you know we haven't done a until until it's designed
we won't be able to determine a cost basis uh and a maintenance schedule but it will definitely be fully disclosed uh to the homeowners uh as required by you know in a contract so they they will have a budget they will have there will
be a line item for um repairs as well as replacements um so yeah there will be full disclosure to the to the I know there would be i'm just thinking of it in terms of down the future this is this um homeowners association fee is like a
search charge on top of whatever the real estate taxes are really true and that you do get the benefits of the private drive versus a public street so true true true um but you know we wouldn't want uh a situation where the
costs of this become so burdensome that it's problematic to get people to pay going down the future 100% and just keep that in mind i would hope understood
rough 13 dealing with uh again vegetation um there's a request of uh a a conservation easement along 38 um the applicant agree to that yes so
to maintain the the existing tree line and whatever other vegetation required i think a 20 25 foot wide uh area that would be designated as a conservation area is fine and I think um also um in Mr taylor's letter he asked that we widen the preserved area on the east
side um near lot three referring to exhibit A2 on the east side of the project make that a little larger and we can accommodate that and maintenance of that would be also subject to the homeowners association
yes but there's very very little maintenance but yes the idea would be to keep it as natural as possible sure um but that means you know picking up discarded trash in there and other there's going to be some potential maintenance and that's for the homeowners association again yes it
could either would like to take it over that that would be good for us it's either association or the individual homeowner as far as a conservation you know the the area within conservation how that would work if it's a if it's a conservation easement it suggests that
uh the association is responsible for even though it may be on the individual lot or lots we've seen it done both ways if if it's created out as part if that 20 ft becomes part of the larger common
open space lot then it is definitely the obligation of the HOA to maintain that we've seen a lot of instances where it just becomes a conservation easement to the benefit of the township and the HOA so the homeowner still has the
obligation to maintain that area but there's a conservation easement so it shows up in their deed that they can't clear cut all those mature trees all the way to 38 that if for some reason they do clear cut or they build a shed or a garage in that area their neighbors can
enforce the terms of that easement or the township but they still would have the obligation to maintain the trash right and fallen trees fallen trees etc um paragraph
14 again dealing with the uppers and woodland along the southerntherly boundary line can you indicate what that will be yeah so along the southern property line we are also showing a 25 ft area of
preserved existing trees and we would be willing to make that a conservation easement as well okay um and then there's a recommendation paragraph 15 that the standards bulk standards going forward be within per
the R1 zone um that's agreeable and 16 um are are these setbacks designed from the edge of the pavement presently yes okay what uh what is the u the road width 18 18 ft 18 feet at versus a
standard if we were using a standard road width we'd be at 50 feet no no uh 50 would be the right way that's correct you're correct about that but the actual cart rate width would be between 22 and 28 ft 28 ft would be if you have parking on one side 22 would be with no parking
okay okay those those are comments of your planner obviously the your engineer will comment once we submit for subdivision and site plan and we're prepared to respond to that at that time mr romero is there anything else that you wish to
add that I haven't asked you uh no we we'll look forward to hopefully proceeding members of the board or professionals have any questions so in terms of the trash um it's also recycling Burlington County recycling as well in addition to the trash hauling
will that be in the HOA document that they if they want to utilize the municipally provided and county provided services that they would have to bring that out to Laurel Ridge yeah so that could be it would be in the in the HOA document okay you know if you did
that looking to the site plan that you might submit you almost have to have a dedicated place at the end of the street for that stuff other than otherwise it gets haphazardly
yeah i placed there and I you know I I drive through Medford and I see these little lanes and there's 25 blue recycle containers half-hazardly dumped at the end of the street and um that certainly be something you
wouldn't want to have here I would think yeah we in the mailboxes too we'll we'll show that sure as part of Yeah does that show anything does that feel like you guys' responsibilities so you'll put that all together and then
that'll be like an ironclad thing so where 20 years from now these three people that live here couldn't come together and say "Hey we can save money let's do away with this we'll I'll plow out this year you plow out next year kind of thing like is that what does
that stand in that?" The way it works is yeah there would be a recorded document uh in the county clerk's office uh each homeowner would be a member of the association uh they would have its own bylaws and its own budget um and the
rules and regulations are set forth in that document so that document remains uh as and it runs with the land so it's always going to be in effect and be valid uh and be subject to and the homeowners would know it because it's of a record and they're charged with that
knowledge so yes it wouldn't be it would it would remain as an association but they do have flexibility if they wanted to rotate through plow each year among them they can or they can join contract out the most critical thing
here is they have to do inspections and maintenance of the basin and that's required by DP and our ordinance and that will all end up becoming a significant portion and that really can't change those are um state and local ordinance requirements for that
yeah I think there's an annual questionnaire that comes out each year so yeah they have to maintain that i tell you the more I sit and think about it and lose I I I do have a concern about the financial burden
uh on a on a three house uh group to support all this uh this cost the road road maintenance this the not the cost of the road but the you know obviously developer is going to build it and build make all the
improvements but the maintenance of the road uh you know its useful life you know it's all computed as to what the maintenance annual maintenance is and and then you know budgeting for replacement as well but it's not unusual to have a small association um for you
know two or three lots well it may not be unusual if you look at it from a wide lens but uh it's unusual for Hannesport i don't know of any other association in Hannesport that is is that
small it just I'm not sure there's many other options and and I think if these were just if this was just an estate home they would have to maintain their driveway anyway and the only additional maintenance responsibility is really the basins and if it was a very very large home that
was larger than a certain um let's say it was just one very large home they would also have a basin that they would also have to maintain so I don't think it's much different than just a normal situation and it's also a smaller development than you would see uh say a 40 development there's much less to maintain here and hopefully I can get
these basins to a small reasonable level that it'll be maintenancefree i think during site plan to help you maybe we can provide that cost estimate that you're asking for and and show you the numbers would that help well I think I I I raise it as an issue
more for you yeah um because obviously the town doesn't want a situation where down the road the costs of maintenance on this HOA become burdensome to the point that you've got defaults by the homeowners
and and then all of that eventually comes back to the town as you can imagine understood i have one question do we have to consider all of the lots in this use variance together or um this one that's
off to the side that's closest to like the chiropractor is it possible but this is one big package of use variance for this whole entire property exactly yeah the request is in order to be able to build in this zone we need the use
variance for each of the four lots that are being proposed issue before you tonight is the use right and it's use variance for the entire seven lots that we're talking
about when they come back so if someone didn't think that this one particular lot was appropriate for housing it would be a no for the entire thing is what we're saying um and then I just want to raise one concern as a
environmental commission representative that um in general these houses are very close to what is becoming a very busy road with lots of truck traffic as warehouses are um built all the way down
38 and um there's a lot of concern as far as how close it is safe to live next to um diesel fumes and other things coming off of a road i personally would have some personal concern about living
so close and especially I think it was raised with just deciduous trees blocking me and the sound of the trucks in the middle of the night and the and the noise so that's I'm I'm raising that just as a concern not necessarily a question but um
um the first design that came through this at least pulls two of the houses back further but um but I would still think that this you know it's it's not the two-lane highway that where there's other houses that are on there and I think in other sections where we've had
new development there's um a commercial zone sort of buffering the housing um which is sort of you know along 38 where the edge of my development they put in houses but there's still a commercial zone that's in front of that backing the houses off a little bit from the from
the highway one of the things that maybe I want to add to that point if I if I may count um when we looked at that we talked about it internally in the office lot number three if you're in your rear yard sort of
close if that was rotated clockwise 15 30° or even so that the back of that house is parallel with the Sandra Lane rightway yeah basically just rotate that a little bit this way we create some
better privacy maybe make the home more marketable and probably get those common outside spaces some additional distance away from Route 38 might help with sound might help with privacy um might make it a more desirable lot a very simple shifting rotating
that might be very nice okay question in terms of will there be a fire hydrant installed here yes there have to be Okay where would that go uh at the end at the end of the lane okay now would the which end
laurel Ridge the the the end okay oh referring to exhibit A2 the end of the sheriff driveway so will the cost of that to American Water be performed by the HOA it would be an easement that would be
dedicated to American water we have not tal spoken to them in that much detail but that would be the plan right now we'll talk to them and if they have a problem with that we'll we'll have to if if they have a problem with that we'd have to have a meter at L Ridge Road and then service to the back and and uh that's doable too but right now we would
be requesting an easement and a me and a hydrant at the end of the line they would probably want that anyway as a blowoff right and the annual or monthly fee for that hydrant to American Water is going to be paid by who the the uh that would be each each lot
would have their own account and their own meter and then the hydrant we haven't spoken to New Jersey American about the maintenance of the hydrant yet but most likely it'll be part of the association requirement
in the same vein street lights yes no how do you We haven't provided design yet for street lights and then how do you handle HOA going to take care of maintenance and power cost we haven't designed this the We haven't
contemplated street lights yet that site plan issue will deal with that i understand but thinking down the road most likely if we could we'd probably just prefer to have the lights off the homes a uh a pole light near the end of the driveway and a and lights on the
house uh typical lights at your entrance and provide I think we're treating we're treating like a shared driveway i don't think there would we we we would not be showing initially uh light poles along along that driveway okay i do think we'd want to make sure
at Laurel Ridge if there's a gap uh because we do own a couple houses it may be appropriate for there to be one in the municipal right away on Laurel Ridge so we get that there is one there that looks like it was damaged today but there is one there near our driveway so
uh we run into a measure you're paying for that public works overtime too no you know there's a tree yeah there's two homes on uh I'm trying to It's um Craig
Drive uh and also on Sandra Lane before you get to Easton Way these I imagine these people put these pole lights up they're really decorative and I don't know if that's something that when you're building this the home that you put that in it really
looks nice there's two homes that happen it's It's on between um uh Sandra Lane and right on Eastn Way there's a big pole right by a garage that looks like they put it up themselves and down when you go to the
end of of Creek Drive where the the circa U area is they also put a light up there big pole light and it looks like the the people did it themselves and maybe just add that when you're building and that's something in the
cost of the the home but if if you could take a look at these two B I mean it's really they're really sharp we'll check it out uh question here will there be a manufactured treatment device between the storm water inlets and the ponds no
no we would we would do all um we would do all just regular no manufactured treatment devices that would require maintenance we we would not have that it would probably be an infiltration basin that wouldn't need that okay um I believe the township has a code for
removal of trees and there's a lot of trees on that lot uh will you be seeking an exemption or variance for that there is a lot of trees and we have not addressed that yet could get a little expensive yeah yeah we we will definitely be talking about during site
plans i I did see that ordinance and it looks like it's pretty tough yep thank you you're welcome thank you mr singer do you have a planner to address i do positive negative criteria yes mr miller
good evening mr miller would you please state your name for the record it's James Miller m I L L E R and your uh professional i'm a licensed professional planner in the state of New Jersey and would you briefly give your educational background
your and your work experience yes I'm uh also uh certified by the American Institute of Certified Planners as a certified planner i have a masters in city and regional planning for Mercury's University and I've been this way a little bit the microphone is
is is get feedback okay two microphones okay that's good and um I've been practicing for over 40 years and I've been qualified as an expert witness in 260 plus municipalities in Pennsylvania New Jersey as well as this board are you
familiar with Mr miller is acceptable as a witness thank you mr miller are you familiar with this project yes I am and what have you done to uh prepare yourself for tonight's testimony i've examined the uh concept plan it was
prepared by our engineer i reviewed the applicable sections of the township zoning ordinance i reviewed the uh 2022 master plan re-examination report as well as some other of the master plan documents that are uh applicable to the
project i've reviewed uh Mr taylor's letter in in detail and I've been out to the site in the surrounding area so I'd be familiar with the land use patterns that uh characterize the area so would you please provide your testimony as to uh supporting the use variance that's
being applied this evening yes if I could use the lecture and then absolutely get off the feedback there board has already heard some extensive testimony about the uh the site itself uh the site is zoned uh PO
professional office district that zone is is is relatively restrictive it permits offices for doctors dentists attorneys engineers architects planners insurance agents accountants and similar office uses they're all basically
smallcale professional uses for the most part and it also has conditional uses allows antique shops which there used to be a cluster of those along Route 38 at one time banks and daycare facilities which are required under under state
statute the surrounding uses and zoning include the Wilbertton bus zone um bus facility which is zon HC highway commercial you could see that early you you could see the uh the bus parking on on U exhibit A1 which is
directly to the north across the street uh from from the subject property to the east is Sandra Lane and that's a wooded area right now it's undeveloped and it is zoned R1 to the south is a residential single family detached neighborhood which is also
zoned R1 and then to the west there are a series of lots that front on Route 38 which are also zone uh planned office and then behind those lots uh the the zoning again is R1 so basically more than 50% of the perimeter of this
property is in the R1 uh district and the balance is uh that little area that's uh zoned uh professional office across from the property that fronts on Laurel Ridge Road the existing use is a vacant wooded lot the proposed use of
the four single family detached dwellings and relief we're seeking this evening is actually twofold we need relief from section 35 of the municipal land use act that requires a lot to front on a public street as you've noted
from the testimony earlier uh this three of the four lots are going to front on a private street and that requires relief from section 35 and then we also need the D1 variance to allow the residential
uses within the plan office district i'm going to begin by addressing the requirements for the section 35 variance first and after I get done that testimony I'll address the uh D1 uh relief as
well under section 405D uh sections 35 and 36 there are appeal criteria for relief from the requirement in the municipal land use law that any lot have
uh access to a public street and that relief is justified if you could demonstrate that there would be practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship or where the circumstances of the case do not require the buildings or structure to be related
to a street and then in addition we also have to show that there will be adequate access for fire and emergency equipment and general compliance with the township's circulation plan in terms of the uh the first set of criteria
uh we uh required to show that the plan uh will have adequate access and the relief required here and the proposed plan would be the private drive that was described earlier which would connect the three lots to Laurel Ridge Road and
I believe there are circumstances here that would justify the relief in terms of the u the fact that there will be adequate access to these lots despite the fact that they won't front on a public street and first of all it's because the lots will front on a private
street and that private street will have most of the uh attributes of of a public right of way and a typical residential street it'll be paved wide enough to support two-way traffic it will intersect with Laurel Ridge uh road
which will provide a linkage to Route 38 and the residential streets network to the south and basically it will enable um this area to maintain the the character it continues to have with the with primarily a residential
character the proposed drive will be adequate former emergency vehicle access and I base that on a number of of um observations here first of all again it'll have a width of 18 uh feet that's the RS RSIS standard for rural land and
a street which would have daily traffic of less than 200 trips per day and no on street parking the RSIS multiplier for trips from a single family detached residence is 10.1 trips so if you multiply the
10.1 times the three proposed units under RSIS the projected trip generation for this property would be 30.3 trips so that's well below the 200 trip threshold and I think what that demonstrates is that we comply with the
RSIS standards the street will be adequate for both normal traffic and also to accommodate emergency vehicles because all those factors were considered when the RSIS standards were established and the uh the standards for
the 18 ft rural lane were uh incorporated into the RSIS uh standards it will also be in general compliance with the township circulation plan the access will drive will get connect to Laurel Ridge Road a street that runs
between Route 38 and Craig Drive that gives you full access to Route 38 it also gives you access to the south and areas to to the south and and west of the property so it's fully connected and integrated into the township street
network and it also won't result in an additional public street so there's very little impact on the circulation plan but to the extent there is any impact it's it's it's compliant because you're not really extending any of the township
street network and uh this is just uh accommodating a very low-level uh development with a private private street but basically uh it's it addresses and satisfies all the requirements for the relief that we're
seeking it will have act it'll provide adequate access for the homes it'll provide adequate access for emergency service vehicles and it will not be detrimental or inconsistent with the challenge of circulation plan so basically it satisfies all the requirements for the relief from section
35 and with that I'll move on to the uh proofs for the u for the dvariance as the board knows that devariance we have to show that there were special reasons that'll justify the relief that we're seeking and that that relief will advance purposes of the
municipal land use law and this evening I would cite three purposes of the municipal land use law purpose A to encourage municipal action to guide the appropriate use or development of all lands in the state in a manner will promote the public health safety morals and general
welfare purpose G to provide sufficient space in appropriate locations for variety of agricultural residential recreational commercial and industrial uses open space both public and private according to their respective environmental requirements in order to meet the needs of all New Jersey
citizens and purpose I to provide a desirable visual environment through creative development techniques and good civic design and arrangement as I mentioned earlier uh D1 variance we have to show that the property is particularly suited for the proposed
use we also have a situation here where we're we've been discussing the bulk requirements that we would anticipate uh adhering to this uh project as we go through the balance of the process when you're involved with the D1
variance the assumption is is that the uh bulk steerings that were designed for the uses which otherwise are permitted in the district may not be appropriate uh for the use that's being proposed and in this case what we're proposing is to
apply the R1 standards for the bulk requirements uh that are applicable to this property to the extent that there's C variance relief required to accomplish that it can be subsumed within the Dvarian so that the the justifications
for the Dvarian will also justify the incorporation of those R1 bulk requirements into the UE variance approval and by extension into the uh design and layout of the
subdivision so basically all the questions that arose about the uh bulk standards are resolved by that that case law which allows you to incorporate and and assume those that relief into the use variance and you also have a little
bit additional flexibility i know there was some discussion earlier about uh the bulk requirements for the lot on the west side of Laurel Ridge Road and to the extent that the board might want to vary those standards a little bit there you have the authority to do that as part of the use variance so I wanted to
throw that out there as well so basically all the relief can be justified by the um by the criteria that are applicable to the D1 variance and I believe there are a number of factors that make this property particularly suited for the uses
proposed uh first of all uh as I cited earlier I believe this is going to contribute to a desirable visual environment and good civic design and arrangement uh basically what the applicant has done is design a fairly
low density residential subdivision for this particular area of the township uh the lot sizes here are significantly larger than they would be in the in the surrounding community for the most part which are again uh determined by the R1
district and um it because it's it's it's really kind of a residential cluster what that does is it enables you to preserve all that perimeter woods all the all the woods that surround the perimeter uh boundaries of the property
and what that does is it creates a a an attractive streetscape along Route 38 and it also creates a rural feel along Laurel Ridge Road which in many respects is going to be more aesthetically
complimentary to the residential areas to the south than if this property had been developed with some sort of office use that would otherwise have been permitted in the in the district where you'd have parking lots and you'd have taller buildings potentially and and uh
a more urban character so this this this kind of a a design uh is a is a good civic uh design alternative because it I think it it's a better fit with some of the residential uses to the south and the surrounding character of the area uh
secondly um the PL the P the PO zone has limited options and the proposed residential use provides a suitable alternative use for the track i did I've I've been involved in in um reviewing the uh the Hannesport
zoning ordinances for many many years and I know that the PO district was created actually back in 1987 and during that era and I've done this for towns that I represented you often created these professional
districts in areas along highways where in earlier periods of development the land use pattern was basically residential rural residential and what the professional office districts did is they created kind of a
transition zone i think one of the board members referred to that a little earlier uh where the homes that might have been there might be converted to a dental office or a medical office or an accounting office and that worked very well back in the day when there was a market for those those uses the problem
we face since the turn of the century is that the market for those types of professional spaces is be is is is plummeted uh there there's just the demand is is is not what what what it had been and that's a function of a lot of things that have changed in society
uh for example um if you were a a doctor or or or a lawyer back in in 1987 uh you had a certain amount of back office requirements um and you could maintain a small practice but you had to have a certain amount of space for your uh your your
secretaries and your bookkeepers and your and your filing but with the advent of computers you no longer need the kind of back office space so a lot of the smaller professional practices operate out of homes and on the other side of
the the theuh continuum a lot of um the the medical and dental practices now require a lot more investment in equipment supplies and and staff than they would have historically you don't have a a single practitioner general
practitioner type doctor for example in residential areas as you did many years ago and so what's happened is a lot of the medical and dental practices have been incorporated into large corporate entities a lot of them are now affiliated with hospitals you'll see you
know the virtu uh emergency care or urgent care facilities and those sorts of things and the overall impact of that from a land use perspective is that you're not seeing the development of areas with professional office owning any longer and I think that this is an
area where uh arguably I don't think you're you're going to see u that type of development occurring uh in the future and as a consequence the zoning becomes difficult to implement because it's very constricted in terms of the
uses it permits and those uses aren't as viable economically as they have been when the when the zoning was created and what this project does is it creates a a very viable and uh contemporary alternative
to the uses that would have been provided by the zone lastly the block and I think most importantly the location has attributes that make it particularly suited for the proposed use these factors are are unique to the
site and its particular suitability in other words it's they're specific to this location not the the district as a whole the tracks situated between Route 38 and a residential district that lies along the balance of its perimeter as I pointed out earlier almost the entire
perimeter is is is in the R1 district except for the part that fronts on Route 38 the area is zoned R1 and the district where it's a district where the permitted uses are primarily single family detached dwellings on 20,000 or
larger square foot lots this development would be fully compatible with that established neighborhood and the residential development patterns that it represents the existing lot on the west side of Laurel Ridge Road will have an area of 19,000 or does have an area of
19,89 square ft that's the existing condition and that condition is within 99% of the minimum lot area required for that R1 district so basically that lot is consistent with the R1 zoning the lots to the east uh that are
proposed on the east side of Laurel Ridge Road will represent the consolidation of the existing seven lots that are present and those lots will measure between 32,453 square feet and
50,112 square feet under the current plan all those lot sizes are well in excess of the 20,000 ft minimum area of the R1 zoning district the net zensity for the 4.27 yeah
4.27 acre track will be slightly over one unit per acre and that again is substantially lower than the achievable density for the R1 district in the with the 20,000 square foot lots typically that density would be in the neighborhood of uh unit and a half per
acre or or maybe larger depending on uh the road configuration that the lots were utilizing and the track will be screened to buffer from the adjoining homes by the existing trees which will further lessen any impact on the surrounding neighborhood again you've already heard
extensive testimony about the buffering along the perimeter of the track and what that buffering does basically is it lessens any potential impact on the adjoining residential areas and those
impacts are already mitigated by the fact that the development that's proposed here is compatible and similar and consistent with the development to the south of the property so basically the development the dwellings will be less impactful than the than the
resident than non-residential uses that are permitted by the the uh plan office district and it'll be fully compatible with the uh properties that surround the the uh the prop this track and will be have the potential to be impacted by any
development on this track and for those reasons I believe that the site is particularly suited for the single family detached drawing uses which are proposed And it satisfies the positive criteria and advances the uh purposes of the municipal land use act I cited
earlier which included uh two purposes which deal with the appropriate use of land and also the purpose that deals with good civic design and arrangement under the negative criteria we have to show that the project will not result in substantial detriment to the public good
and that the use will not substantially impair the intent purpose of the zone plan and zoning ordinance i believe that the first of all the the first prong of the negative criteria the general welfare prong is usually addressed as a function of how the uh
development would affect would impact the surrounding neighborhood and in this qu in this case I think that there's no question that this development is is not going to have any detrimental impact on the surrounding area primarily because
as a land use it's identical to what's on its borders The border areas are all surrounded are are all zoned R1 this property is being zoned or designed to uh to uh implement the controls within
the R1 district so it's completely consistent from a zoning perspective and also in addition to that there's extensive buffering and screening around the perimeter of the property so basically the impact of this is
significantly lower than it would be if it was developed just as a normal R1 subdivision like the subdivisions that are on on the area in within the area to the south of the project and basically as a result of that there's no potential whatsoever here for any detriment to the
surrounding uh land uses the other thing we have to show is that the granting of the D1 variance can be reconciled with the failure to include uh the um use within the district within the PO district and that the relief will
not impair the intent purpose of the zone plan and zoning ordinances and we also have to show that we can reconcile the failure to otherwise include this use within the the PO district under the Medici decision and I I've analyzed uh
first of all I think the analysis that shows that the um planned office district has limited potential to be developed for the uses it permits contribute to reconciling this this use with the uh failure to otherwise include it in the zone i also
think that the fact that it's the proposed residential use is fully appropriate for this specific location and it has the ability to blend in seamlessly really with the surrounding residential development is another factor that uh reconciles this use with
the failure otherwise include it it will also not have an adverse impact on the balance of the PO zone the residential uses will be screened and separated from the balance of the zone they will be oriented away from the highway so there's not going to be any interaction
with with any of those uses although there really aren't any currently that are active in there aside from a chiropractor's office the bank is is vacant and uh the other properties are primarily been uh vacant in some of cases the buildings have been raised so
there's really no potential to adversely impact that zone uh and it's less impactful than the uses which would otherwise be permitted in the planned office zone and that uh I think supports the R1 district by being
more compatible and consistent with the land use patterns that exist in that portion of the R1 district that abuts this this specific property it'll also advance one of the goals of your 2022 re-examination report there's basically 10 goals in that that
and many of them aren't really applicable directly to this variance but uh purpose one reads "Embrace community character enhance the built environment with established residential neighborhoods while meeting the future housing needs of a wider range of
households incomes and age cohorts with continued accommodation of the township's low and moderate income housing obligations i think the key portion of that object uh goal which applies here is the established neighborhood section this is going to
contribute in a positive way to that established neighborhood by being consistent compatible with those established uh homes so basically I believe the uh you uh the the uh proposed development will not impair the
intent or purpose of the zone plan the use can be reconciled with the fail otherwise include the use within the zoning district and as a consequence it satisfies the uh negative criteria as well as the positive criteria and that the application would deserve the
board's approval thank you Mr miller very comprehensive thank you Mr singer any other witnesses i do not any members have any questions of Mr miller all right i'd like to proceed with um uh with professional questions
and then board member questions and then we need an opportunity for public questions or comments for your people to answer so professionals uh they've addressed everything in our February 27 letter and I don't have any further questions unless the board members right
and from our engineer yeah no further questions for us board members questions [Music] you mentioned the um I could just about the you know the detriment there's no detriment to the
public good and I looked at everything is it fair to say that the driveways on the new homes are the same width as these existing driveways on these homes over here and here i guess what I'm asking because you
said there's no on street parking on this strip right so all these houses here these three homes here are they are they able to accommodate two cars wide in those driveways or the answer is the driveways could be designed to accommodate multiple cars
and probably will be uh that's a concept plan and it's not the scale and but I I I can guarantee you from working with developments uh over my the course of my career that a project with that type of
alignment and design uh has ample room to have the the driveways sufficient to uh accommodate the RSI standards and some additional parking and there's even the possibility that there might be a bump out or two along the uh the road of
the culde-sac if the board determines that there might be need for some on street parking as well thank you any other board questions hearing none let's proceed to public questioning so if members of the
public have a comment or a question uh we'll take them one by one come up be sworn in and uh state your question or comment yes sir thank you uh uh my name is James Tambbor i represent George Colner who is here um uh if if you want
to swear him in i just have a few questions for Mr colner and for Mr uh Palante as well all right your is your client here sitting in the front row uh actually second row yes second row uh yeah have him stand up and and uh come
forward and be sworn come on up George right to the microphone thanks and state your swear testimony here tonight i will okay so thank you i would like to
start off by saying uh Mr singer thanked you all and we would also like to express the same regardless of how this whole thing comes out uh we recognize that many of you in this room are volunteers this is a very important issue to us mr caulner has lived uh
adjacent to this uh property for about 40 years now and uh we understand this is now the second hearing that you all have sat through we understand that these are modified drawings we understand Mr blante has had to go through numerous professional reviews so we just wanted to say thank you because
this is very important to us and we understand that most of you are uh volunteering your time um but with that said we don't see how anything has changed since the last time we were here uh the last time we were here you folks recognize that this whole thing is a use
variance and as we've just heard uh that the requirement for a D1 variance uh requires the applicant show um that the property is is particularly suited for the uh proposed use and in reviewing the
December um the December resolution that you all passed section M uh one of the overarching goals of the community is to encourage the development improvement of existing commercial office and business uses along the route 38 corridor and
encourage uses which emphasize future growth there will be no opportunity once these properties are built and and we do acknowledge this is much better than someone coming in to put a gas station in um this is also a much more toned down application than was presented to
you folks several months ago um but make no mistake this is no residential uh use here and we do acknowledge what we've just heard hannesport Township like every other township has a vested interest in bringing in uh residential
property and bringing in enhancing communities things like that this is no place for for children this is no place to to bring in and to invite more kids to come play and ride their bikes and go down the sidewalks this this is an area that's adjacent to Route 38 we don't
need to belabor that point um but it it's quite simply stated that nothing has changed in this application with regard to the proposed use than was presented to you all uh back in December and and that's quite simply uh something that we wanted to put a face on with Mr
colner i had a few questions for Mr uh Palante fortunately uh his his attorney Mr singer did reach out to me we were able to talk through some of our issues um and I had some questions for Frank and he is still under oath um but I wanted to just to emphasize the point
that we raised i wanted to take some testimony from George and to hear from him directly uh George uh where do you live right now i live uh lot 6 of 106.02 O2 and that's is 407 Laurel Road and
that's an area that's adjacent uh to the what's what's been described as one of the retention basins on the um I believe that would be the south side of this uh proposed site correct and my my property line yes joins this proposed development
yes and you live there for about 40 years now correct i believe 1981 yes right and have you seen in in those 40 years have you seen children play in your neighborhood and in this area well yes certainly i see more in Craig
Drive and in Sand Lane but I see some children Yes in front of me okay so the way this has been reconfigured we'll acknowledge that there's a retention basin next to your uh property do you see any concerns with that retention
basin well if if this does go forward I would only ask that that retention basin be moved to the east side if possible uh and retain as
much noise barrier for the entire Laura Wes community from the noise route 38 and the standalone property we've talked about the the single home on the uh west side of the
site uh how close is that to Route 38 oh well you can see it's in it's in contact with it it's it's it's it one of its borders
is traffic on on a on a major highway yes it's it's it's close and and and one of my biggest concerns is that any any child living living in that dwelling is is at
risk but not only uh I mean any any guest of that uh occupant may have children who are not aware of the danger
and I I I believe that's my my first concern was uh was uh you know lot 7 of 106.03 was a residential home there i think it's much more appropriate for for
a small architect or accountant or or an attorney to to take the benefit of exposure to the traffic of Route 38 and the location recognition and use it as an advantage
you know rather than a risk a as a as a dwelling that would have a a child in it that that maybe you You also had concerns about the area of the driveway it's been proposed that that's going to be owned by the HOA that driveway as it's presently configured uh
empties out onto Laurel Ridge Road i believe there's a Sandra Lane on the uh on the far east side of that development did you have uh some insight as to uh why that would be preferable to relocate that driveway if we are now to address
the the area that is uh 106.02 2 uh lots 7 8 9 10 11 12 that group uh I believe a much better solution would be to have access to those
homes out to Sandlane and that would reduce the exposure of those children to the high traffic area the opening proposed is only 175 ft from uh Route 38
traffic uh if it were to open into Sander Lane there would be a much lower uh uh traffic uh situation and and um I I I believe that would be the better solution and then talk a little bit about the buffer that exists now right
now that entire area is uh is trees correct uh yeah what would be the effect of of putting those homes there and putting the retention basins into that buffer in essence the the homes I I I would not oppose if
the basins were moved further east or or one larger basin and if the opening were out to Sander Lane and and provided some some safety for the children i I I
would I would not oppose uh uh situation but that is not what is planned here this is planning to bring that traffic right out to Laura Ridge Road and and right near Route 38 I believe is
dangerous so is there anything else you want to tell this board tonight regarding this application i I I only ask that uh that the board be consistent uh this
was reviewed 3 months ago and and and and found if I read this right a vote of 5 to2 uh to be denied and I just ask that the board be consistent because I I
see essentially the same request for um residential use and a professional zone thank you i had a few questions for Mr palante sure mr palante why don't you come on up
Mr colner thank you mr you're still under oath i'll remind you but uh you and I spoke out in the hallway thank you for that uh we talked about the fact that we're only the only relief request at this time is a use variance uh and that this is not a formal application for site approval so we don't know the
exact location of these homes although you know they've been delineated would you have objection to working with Mr colner in relocating potentially that one retention basin that runs adjacent to his property i would be and and just to make it clear like my intention isn't
to upset residents or to to create a hardship for them it's to to work with them so that you know I can get it done but also hopefully make them happy in the process so that I is it going to be inconvenience to an inconvenience to them of course it is but to try to
minimize that inconvenience thank you and how that we talked about the possibility of relocating the ingress and egress is that possible to move that to Sandra Lane or not obviously that would be have to be something I'd have to sit down with uh Sam the engineer and
kind of go over the the uh the layout for that and see you know how it would make sense but I I do agree yes of course it would be better for the kids to go into Sandre Lane we would just have to see um you know how that would how that would work and the last thing we discussed was whether or not you'd be
willing to uh agree to any sort of a deed restriction to limit this so that you wouldn't come back in front of this board later on for approval to put say another home or two on this site to maybe through a deed restriction or something yeah so as as you see it now is is the way that we are looking to
proceed so I'm not looking to change this at all as far as the amount of houses that were going on on this land all right thank you thank you Mr volante so that's that's all the questions we had folks it was just simply our intention to come before this board and just reiterate that um since the last
resolution of December of uh of 2024 nothing has changed uh they have not met the applicant has not met the D1 variance requirement to show that the property is particularly suited for the proposed variance this this property is particularly suited for a business use
as recognized by uh Hanningsport Township uh about 2 and 1/2 years ago when they reviewed uh when when you folks all reviewed your master plan so uh unless anyone has anything further for for Mr colner um I don't know if there's anyone else here on behalf of
the general public but I would thank you again for your time thank you well we'll find out if there's anybody else the only comment I would make council is that uh without it getting into the details the application that was re reviewed by this board and rejected uh
on a previous meeting was a significantly different application um I know you said it's essentially the same i'm not sure as one member of the board that I agree with that the applications will speak for themselves but uh I think that should be
at least noted uh with regard to your comments yes and we we did acknowledge this is a much more toned down version of what came in here back in December the point that we were trying to make is that nothing has changed with regard to the use the proposed use and when they brought this before the board back in
December it was proposed as residential and the uh um you know at that time the resolution that was passed you know states uh you know to the contrary it is specifically suited for professional office development as it has been for for decades um in the master plan
re-examination just two years ago the board planner did not recommend and the board did not adopt any revision to the professional office zoning of the property none of that has changed that's our only point our only point is and again I'll I'll recognize that uh sometimes the devil that we know is is a
lot better than the devil that we don't know um you know we if this were to be shot down what else would come before um but it's just quite simply not suited for for residential uh purposes for the reasons we've seen so thank you very much thank you council appreciate it
have any questions of the public specifically thank you all right are there any other members of the public that wish to have a question posed or provide a comment seeing no hands in the room there are
two members online all right if they unmute we'll recognize them for comments or questions if they don't unmute we'll assume they're not interested in that no one's unmuting all right so we'll assume they they have no questions sorry I'm going to close public
comment um Mr mccay may I ask a question yeah please so I guess one of the that I've heard through both these applications is the impact on the neighborhood of this use as I listen to
the past and the present is that the Sandra Lane issue I find rather interesting that you brought up because at that point the traffic would be impacting more
residents coming up Lidge going down Sandra Lane which Sandra Lane has been a um a circle since since its conception back in the 80s so as much as we all
talk about things logically you don't want this to impact the neighborhood as from what I see from both applications but changing the entrance from Laurel Ridge which is right literally where they don't have to go past into any of
the other parts of the neighborhood doesn't make any sense to me as the zoning official when I look at that because now we're impacting traffic with children that play on Craig Drive and Sandra Drive
so you have cars coming up Lidge turning on to Craig and then turning onto Sandra where as testimony from both times is that that's where all the children play so how is it any safer then if we're
reverting the entrance from the very beginning of Laurel Ridge Road all the way through that entire neighborhood then into a culde-sac that's been in place for 30 plus years and who's to say that these new
houses will have children yes that absolutely could yet when you take a look at the amount of houses that I just described on Laurel Ridge Craig Drive and Sandra Drive you're impacting more houses than this development would ever
have so uh again that just is a little confusing to me is that people don't want this if it were to prove to impact their neighborhood but changing the location of how they get in there and then we talk about trash we talk about
mailboxes so now we have more of an impact with trash recycling uh mailbox um so to me that is um not the most logical point that I've heard
from for both again no disrespect by any means but as zoning official as I listen to hear all this that does not make an ounce of sense to me personally and professionally so um that's my opinion thank you thank
you all right um Mr kingsbury we need to u proceed can you frame out uh uh the the motion uh that could be
made to um adopt the variances and I think we're talking about three variances well the main motion would be to grant a new variance should we break
them should we break the motions up or as shown on the um concept plan but not approval of the concept plan would be the motion would be contingent upon the applicant coming
back for subdivision approval and lots of sign so I think that's the the main variant has to be voted on require five years roads the u it would
include a lot area variance for the standalone lot and can see the need to have that as part of his uh development all right so my recommendation
is a use variance for a four lot subdivision subject to site plan approval and design approval with a lot area variance with the standalone lot
are we including the the street frontage variance in that i think you can deal with that when it comes to cycle okay you're just talking about the use of the property at this point
all right and uh five votes would be needed to pass that variance all right so members of the board you've heard the solicitor scope out a motion
to grant the requested D1 variance and the related um and the related variance uh can I have a motion uh to um advance back
so moved all right we'll have a second second all three of us pick one i'm not quite sure who yeah first steve did you were you first no I was
pretty close pretty close ty goes to the runners let's go to the replay uh all right we get the second mhm all right roll call please mr bradley yes mr narita yes mrs levin
yes mr murphy yes miss Pasco yes mr holden yes and Mr mccaff yes all right passes mr palante uh we'll see you sometime in the future the site plan I
assume thank you Mr singer all right um moving right along um we have an administrative amendment as item D for case 23-01 Carvalo Carpentry
good good point [Applause] [Music] [Music] welcome back ladies thank you just for you did you miss me no the heat was on the heat was on all
[Music] right um Miss Nukem what's the issue hi good evening folks mr mccay and board members uh Kathy Nukem Hannesport Township Zoning Officer um so back in March of 24 the board approved an
addition for a property located at block 64 lot 15 which is 2611 uh MREN Highway um everything came together and um at the very end I asked for a final
survey on the property which I would normally do uh in this case again uh I did a cover letter i apologize for the first sentence i repeated the word 'the' a couple times um yet I spoke with Mr kingsbury on this
and this isn't a a really dimminimous issue but we both felt that it was should be brought to the board just to be put on record um I didn't feel that obviously it was my decision to to just ignore and as well as Mr kingsbury agree
with that so the resolution stated that the uh front yard setback because this is a corner property has two front yards was at 6'8 versus the 30 ft that was required for that zone when they did the final as built on the survey it came
back at 6.5 instead of 6.8 again as dimminimous as it is I still think that for any future sale of this house or anything that is questioned that the board should recognize the difference even though dimminimous in nature um I
think the board should be addressed on this so that they can see it that makes perfect sense because it could cause a problem down the road with the new survey correct all right so Mr kingsbury um what is the
motion that you would propose uh to be made by the board that would clean up this 3 in 2 or 3 in issue we need a motion to approve the as built
position and not requiring a relication for variance because the deviation is so diminous that it's not of concern okay uh let me um ask members of the board if
you have any questions on this any uh comments from our professionals on this uh any comments from the public hearing no comments from the public present uh anyone online any
public members online have a comment no one has unmuted no so we'll assume no all right um anything further Miss Nukem or anything further that you have no it's pretty self-explanatory i just thought
again um with the future of even a new resident possibly buying this house if you were to sell it or something anybody did an over request and saw the difference uh I think it's fair to the town as well as the applicant that we address this and and just make it right
and correct all right members of the board the motion has been framed by Mr kingsbury um do I have anyone who will make a motion uh to um uh to to accept the administrative change so move all
right second second roll call mayor Gilmore yes mr murphy yes mrs tory yes mr bradley yes mrs lein yes mr novarita yes miss Kasco yes and
Mr holding yes and Mr mckay yes all right i thank you for your time thank you Mrs all right um we have some minutes to deal with um first we have the minutes of the January 8th reorganization
meeting mr mckay you can do both of those uh minutes in one vote because everybody's the same they're all here are they all all right all right we'll do that then uh we have both sets of minutes the regular meeting and the
u reorganization meeting so can I have a do a motion to adopt uh and file the motions as drafted the minutes excuse me as drafted i'll make that motion okay
second second all right and roll call please miss Koska yes mr novarita yes mrs tory yes mr bradley yes mrs le yes mayor Gilmore yes mr murphy yes and Mr mcnite
[Music] yes all right we have two resolutions to look at um which is item nine on the agenda resolution 2025-10 that's the Loreno property
you'll recall that um long narrow uh road or long narrow lot uh over on Ark Road um can I have a motion to adopt the
resolution as drafted so moved second roll call mrs tory yes Mr bradley yes Mrs leven yes Mayor Gilmore yes Mr novarita yes Mr murphy yes Miss Costa
yes and Mr mckay yes uh next we have resolution 20 2025-11 Hannesport Enterprises um you recall this involved
the site on Route 38 and um uh I'll call it the sort of the cleanup of various issues with regard to that lot um can I have a motion to uh to accept the resolution
uh as drafted so move second roll call please mr bradley yes mrs leen yes mr narita yes mr murphy yes miss Costco yes and Mr mckay
yes all right next we have correspondence uh we have a schedule of correspondence from A to F does anyone have any desire uh to address any of those particular items of
correspondence in particular uh and if not can I have a motion to receive and file that correspondence as listed on the agenda so move motion to receive and file
second second roll call mr bradley yes mrs tory yes mr london yes mayor Gilmore yes mr balden yes may yes mr murphy yes most yes mr yes all right item 11 professional
comments are there any from either our planner or engineer or council all they have is no retirement oh well I guess that's good for us and bad for Marty
but that's good news um any board comments uh yes if I may yes um I just wanted to echo I fully agree with you Mr mccay in terms of um Mr palante's application is in fact a very much different
application and that's evident by the absence of all of the residents in that community and the overwhelming support of our land use board tonight um it's clearly a less intense application and 90% of the comments that were made from the community that night were with
regards to the veterans home and the supportive needs housing so um that alone makes this an overwhelmingly much different application so um obviously Mr palante is um it's a great it's going to be a nice project but it's significantly
scaled down to meet um the mandate which the board adopted um as part of the land use process um that any developments five or more requires a 20% set aside for affordable housing so obviously this mitigates that need um but um I agree
with you Mr mckay it's a substantially different application yeah I think your comments are well taken and uh thank you any other public any other board comments seeing none um I'll ask for public comments but
there's no one in the room here but online there might be some comments if anyone unmutes to make a comment otherwise we'll assume no comment just one individual they're not unmuting no one's unmuting so we'll close the public
comments um may I have a motion to adjourn so moved second second all in favor any opposed is that a murmur or is that