##VIDEO ID:2KGZUQZxavc## good evening everyone welcome to Hillsboro Township planning board meeting of December 5th 2024 please join me and salute to the flag pled alleg to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liy and justice for [Music] all please be advised this meeting has been duly advertised according section five of the open public meeting meetings Act chapter 231 Public Law 1975 Otherwise Known Sunshine Law notice of the 2024 annual meeting schedule has been provided to the officially designated newspapers Township Clerk post on Township's website and available here at the Hillsboro Township municipal complex in addition application documents and plans have been made available on the township Civic clerk website at least 10 days in advance of this evening's meeting complete application files are available in the planning and zoning department for inspection accordance with the public meeting notice with that may have a roll call of planing board members and also board and Township professionals Please Mr vender leet is absent Mr Wagner here Mr rtz here M Smith here Mr Vitali here Mr Deb here commit M Le present mayor Chelli here Vice chair PE here chair sarach here Mr Po pres Paul here Bernstein here may here and myself and the videographer are here okay excellent thank you and welcome everyone really here man never speaks okay we do not have any meeting minutes for consideration nor resolutions there is no planning board business so I will move to business from the floor for matters not on this evening's agenda if anyone like to provide any commentary to the planning board please come up state your name and address for the record please and please keep comments limits five minutes hi Gren colmer Taylor Avenue um forgive me chairman I have something that is on the agenda related to campus and last time they had the update there was no public opportunity to make comment or to question the witness just because they're apply an update so I can certainly Reserve or I can say now later what later campus yeah campus is on the agenda well wait till the campus as long as there an opportunity just to open up last time there wasn't that's why I'm up here now thanks yep thank [Music] you Maria Janus 720 East frck Avenue Manville New Jersey I'm also Hillsboro Township property owner block 86 lot 32155 camplan Road uh I was present at the last planning board meeting that was held on November 14th this year for the public hearing of the Weston Road LLC application from the what's been discussed at the the public hearings the applicant is attempting to appropriate property that is owned by the township of Hillsboro um there have been several hearings for this application but this fact was not disclosed at any of the prior meetings uh how is this application with the applicants building sitting on Township property allowed to go forward a letter dated March 15 2022 had been sent to the Hillsboro Township committee it was um sent care of Sean Lani committee man leani who was the mayor at the time and so uh how can someone build on property that doesn't belong to them and how was that application allowed to go forward when you had people who had hired an attorney to represent them from from the Hearthstone development and now we're finding out that the applicant has his building sitting on land that doesn't belong to him there is a deed Township that the township owns the property there is the letter from uh of 2022 in regard to this and how is this how is this allowed to go forward unfortunately I can't comment on anything here because that is still an active application and and I do know at the last meeting we were we had stated you know once um um I'm going to say um the matter was completed we would address the issue we would deal with that issue at the end I'm sorry once what we would deal with that issue once everyone is completed with their presentations okay so it's a still active so there's nothing I can comment at this point okay but how can this be active if they don't own the land and they have their building Mr Janes this is a pending application the board cannot comment on a pending application in the absence of all the parties involved in the application if you have anything else regarding any other matter be my guest yeah well but the thing is during the meetings we don't have the opportunity to say anything when the when the when the are you you will have the opportunity at the appropriate time during that application hearing is there any other matters yeah I wanted to ask uh in regard to the uh position of the uh planning board attorney um is that um something that's put out for for uh yes yes qualifications um has so has there been a choice made already or when who makees who makes that choice the planning board makes the RFP is out the planning board makes that choice and if you'd like to apply for it be my guest okay okay um the request miss janc the request for proposal for All Professional Services are currently out they are doing in bid opening I believe is the 10th of December Tuesday Tuesday at that point they will be they will be Consolidated and the appropriate people will review them and make the decisions based on the qualifications of the applicants like we do every year so the Hillsboro Township committee puts out the requests for qualifications request for bid yes request for proposal qualific request for qualification proposal right correct it's on the town website Miss Janus SEC and that is and that is from the township committee that is from the Township from the township all right because I think it was in the minutes of the township committee so who who makes the decision the planning board the ultimate decision yes we would take a v planning board can the planning board makes the decision have to jump on the chair for the attorney for this for the planning board attorney the township committee and the uh makes the decision for the uh Township attorney and all the other professionals the engineering Etc um so it and the zoning board the zoning board makes their turn so it's the same way it's been done for the last 20 years that I've been involved with the township as do the other townships around right we're not the only ones that do and when when when um professionals submit their uh their qualifications is that available to the public to see who had applied for that position I don't know if that's uh available to the public I don't believe it's available until after the until after the board makes a decision right and then it would be available yes thank you you me anyone else for matters on this evening's agenda okay see none we're going to move on we do have a consideration of ORD of an ordinance ordinance 2024-the preservation of the code of the township of hilsboro Somerset New Jersey to address the New Jersey Department Environmental Protection tree removal requirements David or is a council thank you Mr chairman uh ordinance 24-16 proposes to amend the township code to address the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protections tree removal requirements the 2023 tier a ms4 permit renewal requires permites to and at a minimum to adopt and enforce a CommunityWide ordinance to control tree removal and replacement for all types of properties where the municipality has jurisdiction the townships existing uh tree ordinance did not comply with those requirements and that is why a new ordinance was proposed the public hearing will be at the December 10th Township committee meeting okay thank you Mr burnsy I believe it's the recommendation of the planning department that the township planning board um concur with the ordinance that has been introduced by the township committee and return it back to the pl to the township committee for their action is that correct Mr Co that is correct it is consistent with the master plan okay thank you is there any comments from the [Music] de okay I don't have to open up the I'll motion two is a motion to concur with ordinance 202 24-16 and ordinance amending chapter 188 of land use and development section of the township code in regard to addressing the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection tree removal requirements that same is consistent with the township master plan and that the planning board is recommending to the township committee adopt on second reading at a subsequent Township committee meeting this year which I believe is next Tuesday correct December 10th thank you I have a motion to make that resolution I'm sorry who thank you Mr Wagner second okay I have a second roll call please [Music] oh I I was just going to reiterate that this was um part of us maintaining the the guidelines and the and the D mandates for us to to to address all these um and you know we always look at ordinance but Cally just filling the guidelines that they've provided right Mr Co nothing overreaching more than what they they've uh asked us to to do correct it is a mandate okay before we go to vote any other final any final comments okay roll call please Mr Wagner yes Mr adwits yes M Smith yes Mr vital yes Mr Deb yes commit in the py yes may ch yes vice sh PE yes CH yes okay moving on to this evening's public hearings first up is Hillsboro 206 Holdings LLC file number of 18- pb-7 mspv it's a 2024 amend amended site plan the time of decision is January 22nd of next year this is block 202 lot 104 otherwise known as 871 route 6 North SL2 Shindler Court the applicant is seeking amended preliminary and final major site plan approval to eliminate the construction of two retail buildings in a property in lie of it's proposing to construct two additional residential buildings to contain 24 units of which six will be affordable units on the property located in the mixed use inclusionary district and the architectural and site design overlay Zone so with that counselor I'll turn it over to you thank you Mr chairman members of board Richard Hoff law from bis Hoff here on the app Hill 206 holding LLC as chairman indicated we're here tonight for an amending site plan um as I know from the faces of the members in the board I've been up and down over the years with this one um this is a project that is built in in large part it's the Hillmont uh project um it was originally approved back in 2019 175 units uh inclusive of affordable housing part of the Township's affordable housing compliance plan uh interestingly about that approval it also required a mixed use component of 12,500 ft of non-residential development that was approved along with the original applications and contain a condition that talked about having to report on status of the non-residential development over the course of construction such that the the idea was finish the residential without the nonresidential being Incorporated Co happened a lot of things happened and we were getting traction on the uh retail despite our best efforts and there was discussions had and eventually an ordinance adopted uh last earlier this year that allows for the incorporation of two additional residential buildings in L of two of nonresidential buildings um as anyone's been out of the site probably knows the first non-residential buildings under construction uh and we're talking about just a small area of those remaining two buildings the site is Disturbed as the's going to walk the board through but here tonight we're just effectively swapping out to non residential for resal so with that introduction I'm going to turn it over to J Ward our engineer we going to S you in there tonight going be truth the whole truth nothing but the truth is that you spell your name James Ward w r [Music] d bring this up on the screen for okay is it try it again [Music] um while we're figuring that out let's start Mr Ward uh your professional and educational background please uh yes I'm a licensed professional engineer uh my license is in good standing um kind of move the mic a Little Closer Closer I'm sorry and I've uh provided testimony in front of this board previously and been qualified in the field civil engineer correct and you're familiar with the application yes I am Mr chairman I'd offer Mr W qualified in the field of civil engineer okay any objections from board members head shakes no we accept please proceed Ward licensees current Mr Ward your licenses are current yes correct currently in good standing in current um so the first illustration I have here is uh an existing conditions uh aerial view that shows the current conditions of the site um you'll see that all the residential buildings are pretty much built out the clubhouse is built uh uh retail building a is uh built and the pad site for the other two retail buildings uh has been prepared and ready for construction um the next slide I'd like to show oops sorry hold on one second um is what was previously approved for the site um you'll see in that upper leftand corner uh buildings a uh retail a b and c um B and C are the ones that uh we'd like to remove and replace that with two uh residential buildings which are uh pretty identical um to the ones that were already put up there and constructed so um next slide shows the uh amendment that we're proposing to that site P plan uh buildings 15 and 16 are the two additional buildings uh retail uh a will remain um the access for those two residential buildings is going to be exactly in the same spot um that the previous driveway access was for the retail uh so we're going to use that for the residential buildings and we're going to provide another um access point on Schindler Court uh so we could have circular um movement throughout that that retail uh area the uh Next plan is basically just a a blowup of that sheet we're going to make this A2 the previous sheet was A1 an there was an errow before that3 okay sorry about that yes so uh each one of those residential buildings will have 12 units um so a total of 24 units are proposed six of those are affordable um there's a a total of that would bring the entire project up to 199 units and 48 affordables um the proposed residential buildings uh um I'm sorry I I lost my spot there uh retail building a uh is to remain where it was and I think I just said that on the other slide I'm sorry um the this this detail DET it shows more detail of what is proposed um there'll be screening behind the Residential Building um there will be a fence a solid fence like previously was provided between um the last building that was building 14 and the retail so we're going to duplicate that just move it over two buildings uh with screening and uh we're also proposing a uh Park area uh in between the retail and the residential buildings um and that would bring me to the next slide which shows a more detailed view of that Park that we're providing uh it'll have a Tot Lot for two to fivey olds with play equipment uh there's a seating area uh inside and outside that Park area will be fully uh enclosed with the gate access um the fencing along 206 would be a solid PVC fence that would match what was existing out there um also in between the uh residential building and the park that portion would be a solent PVC fence and the remainder would be a aluminum picket fence with the gate access um I said um so um might have been stated previously that uh the entire project uh reduces impervious cover uh 893 Square fet um the motor vehicle surface is reduced even more than that there's a slight increase in building coverage so the net difference is 893 so the actual reduction motor vehicle coverage is more than that and I know there's a question regarding uh whether that might be di Minimus for the project or not uh but uh Rick if you want to sure let's just we let's clarify that point so there's a bit more building coverage but that increase is being offset by the reduction in the motor vehicle parking area previously associated with the retail correct okay yes so um the point being how that relates to our storm water uh and uh we were of the opinion that there is no impact on our storm water so and with respect to storm water and really with respect to just the entirety of the site nothing needs to change from an infrastructure St point to accommodate these two residential buildings is that correct correct we don't the buildings or the the basins don't need to get bigger the entrances aren't impacted at all everything Remains the Same is that correct correct yes um there was also a question that was raised relative to the traffic impact associated with going from the retail uses to the residential uses yeah we submitted a a summary correct difference correct um there was all uh there was a reduction in am uh pm and weekend peak hours and all three of those cases there's a reduction in traffic from the site okay so we actually end up net positive on the traffic demand as well correct okay um and I'm sorry go ahead oh I'm sorry uh so we're and I just want to go through the parking that we're compliant with parking uh across the board uh I could give you lots of numbers uh we have 407 spaces required we're providing 419 spaces uh the retail requires 16 spaces we're actually providing 24 in that area uh the residential requires 319 space spes there's a remaining 395 spaces on site so we're increased on that so we don't have necessarily a shared parking uh situation we're overp parked on both of those uh we provide enough Ada spaces uh nine would be required for the whole entire site we're providing 19 which are basically distributed throughout the site for convenience um EV parking um the retail would require one we're actually providing two um the the additional 24 units uh would require eight spaces uh EV ready spaces and the garages there's 12 uh EV ready garages uh provided for that okay and so those all comply with the applicable provisions and then the township zoning Provisions that apply to the site do we comply with all of those Provisions as well yes we do so this doesn't trigger any setback variances coverage building U perious no all complies correct does not we're well with and those those regulations okay uh and you've had an opportunity we received uh a review letter from Mr Mayu uh you've had an opportunity to review that yes and was there anything uh within there any suggestions or comments that we could not comply with uh no I believe we could comply with uh everything in there and hopefully my testimony I went through and and addressed all those but all these comments we we could uh and certainly we'll turn it over to Mr meu to correct anything that we missed and in Mr CO's letter I don't think there was anything that we needed to specifically address that we haven't but again Mr Co will point that out for us um we were in receipt of an additional review letter that we got today uh relative to the environmental commission um and like the thrust of well the first part raised was a correction of the tree count um this project complies with the requirements of the ordinance relative to provision of trees yes correct but we can correct any uh count error I think that raised a discrepancy with we'll review that and if we need to add some more we certainly will add more trees I think the comment was there wasn't a deficiency the question was exactly how many above their requirement okay we'll we'll provide that information the more substantive comment raised by the uh environmental commission's report was the applicability as the board knows storm water regulations in New Jersey have changed since since this was originally approved this project complies with the regulations that were in effect in 2019 when it was originally approved all of the storm waterer aspects of the project have been Incorporated and built um but a question was raised by the EC is to whether the project now needs to comply with the new storm water regulations because we're in for a revision our position is that this would not be required to provide for the entirety of the site to comply with the new regulations frankly that's not possible uh because the storm water already exists however we did have the opportunity to review the potential for incorporating some uh infiltration and even some water quality provisions on the new portion um we've we had the opportunity to talk with Mr Mayu we would be agreeable to providing some infiltration uh as well as some uh water quality features that Mr Ward where would be the most logical place to incorporate those yeah we we could provide some uh green infrastructure let me go back to one of the other slides that shows the site uh like radf here there's two inlets we could provide uh green infrastructure inlets for that uh we have a perimeter roof drain system we could provide uh perious piping for that and promote groundwater recharge so rather than argue that it's not applicable and get into a dis agreement about whether it applies we feel that even if it did apply given the nature of what this is actually proposing those types of Provisions which we'll work with Mr mayus to ensure that you know it's sufficient we believe that meets the uh if not the letter certainly in the intent of the revised regulations because we will be incorporating the type of features that appear in the 2023 revisions to the uh D regulations so obviously nothing we can do with the balance of the site because that system exists but we will incorporate additional measures to the satisfaction of Mr mayhew's office for this uh additional portion so I believe that addressed the the thrust of the EC's recommendations and or concerns so with that Mr chairman we didn't have anything else I mean we we have Mr raaker our architect here um if you would like to hear from him but um not to steal his Thunder he's going to come up and tell you these buildings are going to look just like the other ones on the site so um I I think i' I'll save us the time so obviously it's in our interest to have it look cohesive uh and that's what we did with the design okay so with that we uh obviously available to answer any additional questions from the board of professionals members of the board and members of the public okay Mr May here thank you Mr chairman um I did have an opportunity to talk to the applicants uh engineer and attorney Mr Hoff and I discussed the EC committee review letter um uh I suggest that Mr Hoff's offer of introducing some manufactured treatment devices for water quality and infiltrating some of the roof runoff from the two proposed new buildings is a satisfactory um way to address the EC's concerns um we believe that it's uh it's not totally clear at the DP as to when an application is considered new versus an amending older one and how much amendment can occur before triggering all the new RS so I think the offer presented is a very fair suggestion how to address the storm waterer criteria um I just have two other items to note in our review letter I understand the applicants willing to address our comments I just want to clarify on page three we're our office is recommending a little bit more Landscaping along 20 behind a new proposed cuz it that would have been retail and it wouldn't have needed to be screened but now it's residential so would your office be willing to absolutely some Evergreens in that area yes okay and the only other comment that I didn't hear any testimony on and this is maybe for the applicant and the board to discuss is the parking does meet rsis criteria but in order to meet that what it's saying is for every one car garage and one car driveway rsis allows you to count that as two parking spaces and our office experience has been that that can be difficult uh sometimes garages get used as storage and sometimes people don't feel like moving their car in and out of the driveway uh I'm just wondering if there's an opportunity unless the board's experience at this site is that there aren't any problems is there an opportunity to look at additional parking somewhere yeah we we could review that but um I I'm in my first opinion is I I think we're maxed out uh we were going to add some additional parking next to the clubhouse that was on the site plan uh I could see my rendering doesn't show that unfortunately uh but over in this area over here I think we're adding six spaces so we could take a look at that maybe we could add eight uh if we can uh I know in your review there was something regarding widening the road um that would block access to building 15 and we would possibly gain two in front of Building 16 but at the same time none of the rest of the site doesn't have that feature someone would have to actually go down the street make a U-turn in somebody else's driveway I guess uh and then park on the street so that that keeps it basically you know uh cordoned for the residences of those two buildings uh really so this is more I mean as I said it meets the rsis I guess it's more of an opportunity if the board and has heard feedback from residents of that area that there's issues on site parking that now is an opportunity to try to address it if not then I find Mr Ward's testimony F satisfied and if we're willing to add a couple spaces here and there that that would address Our concern we're we're willing to look at that sure okay thank you [Music] voice uh Mr Mayu address um stole my thunder appropriately I have nothing further or any concerns thank you okay but we haven't received any calls or complaints or feedback as to the parking situations uh up to now no we and and usually our our phones they know they know how to reach us uh we have not received any any complaints about that what's your capacity of the of the project right now are you full everything that's available is rented are we yeah we're fully occupied and I and when the question got raised I just asked our my client and it's not an issue that we've heard from residents okay that was and they would know how to find us too obviously you would know um just as a question have you found a tenant for your retail space yet or you just uh yeah building a is fully uh tenanted good good for you yep time how many tenants two okay any other board members comments questions I just have a question uh out of curiosity if you can clarify what's the the variance in the square footage between the existing plan and the new plan I know you kind of touched on that but what is the additional square footage there's there's a reduction and impervious cover of no just the square footage wise the building building square footage let's see of building coverage oh the building coverage actually gets slightly increased those two residential buildings are larger than the two retail that it's replacing um I don't have that number in front of me exactly I think it might be on the building coverage goes from 11.2 to 11 .8 but I don't I'd have to I wouldn't do that math Mr Ward would have to do that math into what that means in if you don't have it handy yeah I was just curious thank you uh 11.8 what percent yes thousand correct across the entire [Music] site yeah um Mr Ward you mentioned um duplicating the fence that runs vertically um are you duplicating the fence or are you moving the that fence will be removed so the one that's there will be removed correct okay so there won't be two fences there'll be no correct yes we're we're duplicating that theme and moving it down to to the end of the new residential complex all right thanks anyone else okay can have a motion open to public please so moved second all in favor I I okay if there's anyone from the publicly that would' like to ask this witness uh anything on his testimony please come up to the mic state your name and address for the record [Music] please Susan Gord Hunt Club Road the six additional affordable that you have listed I'm not sure who this goes to it does that get credited to our next round the answer to that is yes okay I wasn't sure where that one went um on those garages I remember a problem with garages and parking at another development is each one of these garages attached or assigned to or has access only to a particular unit yes okay so it's nothing it could be rented separately so to speak okay um on the parking spaces did you say for the um the new the remaining retail building yes sorry um did you say 16 required 24 or was it the other way around yes uh retail a requires 16 parking spaces and that parking field has 24 parking spaces okay 24 and you're going to have two businesses in there that's the plan okay that um it just seemed a little low for two businesses okay thank you okay you any other members of the [Music] public Maria Janus 6 720 East FR Avenue Manville New Jersey uh is this application um a part of a settlement agreement the original application was part of the Township's affordable housing plan but it was not the subject of a formal settlement agreement so there there there was no settlement agreement between the applicant and the township correct huh we we we convince the applicant not to become an interven by bringing an application forward and working with them as to what the application would look like therefore avoiding them going through the process and getting something that the township wanted without having to wait for the court to deal with it separately they are however part of the Township's agreement with fair share housing center is part of its overall affordable housing plan for round three and these units as I indicated When Miss gulford asked the question would be toward round four thank you any other members okay Mr chairman I have nothing further um unless the board has any further questions you know uh we appreciate the board's attention to this project not only tonight uh but in the years since 2019 it's been a challenge and we appreciate the cooperation both of this board and the members of the Township committee thank you board members that's F okay so now we will open it to the public again for their last chance as at the proverbial Apple any final comments or thoughts okay see n motion to close the public second all in favor I I counselor [Music] Mr chairman there is a mo there is an application before an amended application before you regarding Hillsboro 206 Holdings LLC file number 18- pb-7 mspv the 2024 amended site plan for Block 202 Lot 4 known as 871 Route 206 north2 Shindler Court this is an amended preliminary and final major site plan application to eliminate two Weil buildings from the original application replace them with two additional residential buildings containing 24 R 24 units of which six of those are affordable and we go toward the Township's round four obligations and it is located in the mu-1 mixed use inclusionary development Zone um the applicant is place before you the rationale for such uh this board most of the members have sat through this now more than fiveyear application Mr Hoff has asked for rental space um regarding this discussions as to the issue of retail continue to come up attempts were made to try to address same and the board and the applicant basically came to the conclusion before this application that the way to go with what is now before you this evening which is two additional residential units that basically Ally mirror the existing residential units which applicant has indicated are fully occupied and I assume the intention is these will be shortly after they are completed that has been the history of this application the units are included within the buildings they are not separated into one is that correct Mr hog just to conclude that's correct thank you and therefore they meet all the other criteria and the applicant has indicated they will meet the conditions both with they have agreed to on the record this evening and to meet the conditions and requests made by both Mr Mayu as the board engineer and Mr kise is the board planner planning director for the township okay and we're not going to require Mr Hoff to come here again well you could but you know an update you're ribbon cutting so with that Mr chairman I'll make a motion to approve the uh the request and the application as laid out by the uh Mr Bernstein and I'd also like to to thank Mr Hoff and his and his group for being um flexible with us and asking uh and working with the board throughout this process uh over the last five years and um I'm glad to hear that you've rented that space thank you motion second okay any final comments from the board members hearing none roll call please I need to check something for Eric before I put some red names on here what names they're probably not eligible call the roll my other replacement Mr Wagner yes Mr RTS yes M Smith yes Mr Vitali yes Mr Depp yes committing in the pony yes Deputy Mayor Chelli yes sh yes yes thank you very much thank you have a nice holiday do the same we you like to be booked for another meeting Rick we could bring you back sometime in the first [Music] quarter okay we're going to move on to to the next and and the and the next victim as I like to say next opportunity campus associat L LLC with file number 20- pb-1 13- MSP is a 2024 update for lock block my block 58 lot 1.05 otherwise known as for Campus Drive the applicant which happens to be now a new property owner is updating the planning board report on the status of the project uh had been requested for every 6 months and for this update it was no later than the end of this year so it's nothing like three weeks to go and and we're going to ask that now the applicant give an update but the applicant make themselves available for questioning from the public yes which prior councel was not uh I will indicate to the board that uh when Mr paoc Castro was here this issue was raised raised and we got silence and then we got notification that we now have a new owner so uh that it was my request of Mr K's office that Council come take his proverbial beating uh that uh he give us a more detailed update on where we are based on the history of this application that precedes him which he unfort his client unfortunately acquires by virtue of the the application and um I think he should introduce I'm sure he will uh and tell him where you he is and whatever question the board and the public may have counselor okay thank you uh very much thank you members of the board might professional I'm sorry pull the mic just than CL the base M oh here we go we good okay thank you as luck would have it I actually know Mr Hoff we uh we used to work together many years ago go so it's his maybe his last time here and my first time here so and our our kids went to high school together so well familiar with uh with Mr Hoff and happy to see him tonight uh my name is Stephen Kessler I am the uh general counsel of fern Mor homes uh we are based in Jackson New Jersey uh which is uh uh right down the road and uh we are a family-owned uh business we are real estate developers um we build uh develop uh we're our own general contractor uh and we own and manage our units after we build them and we keep them we don't sell them typically um we have over 4,700 uh units in the tri-state area Pennsylvania New Jersey and Delaware and um we have uh you the reason we're here in Hillsboro we acquired the project back in September uh from uh the prior owner and uh we we chose Hillsboro for a number of reasons um first of all it's a it's a it's a great area uh for us uh strategically we have two other uh projects under development that are fairly close uh down the road in in planfield and over in uh uh Branchburg we're under contract for another project as well so strategically um it sort of fits into our geographic area and we like the project we like the area we like to think that Hillsboro is are of the of those three don't tell the planfield people or the Branchburg people but Hillsboro is our favorite one we think this is an exciting project for us um our company is owned by a gentleman named Jeffrey fernbach Jeffrey has been in the development business for the past 30 years um I uh came to work with Fern Moore uh five years ago out of Private Practice and have not regretted uh a single day of my departure I absolutely love the people I work with like I said we're a family business um and we handle these projects from from Soup To Nuts um we uh like I said own we manage in-house so that is our plan here as well uh I want to give you just a quick update on the project itself and where it stands like I said we acquired the project in September of 2024 um after we acquired it uh we then began to uh reach out to our mobilization team on the construction side um we began working with the uh Township officials and the construction Department in terms of getting the project ready uh to move forward we um continued to familiar familiarize oursel with the uh with the approved uh site plan that we have um we have since uh posted bonds uh for the project and uh mobilized our site work contractor and started to move equipment on on site so we're planning to be on our site work um you know of course with the cooperation of of Township officials Township engineer Township Construction office everybody's been a pleasure to work with so far and uh like I said we're in the mobilization uh uh process at this point we've paid our gross I said before we posted our bonds the schedule is uh right now weather permitting uh with the winter uh months setting in we're going to start our our site work and hopefully wrap up our site work and infrastructure work by the time the weather breaks in the spring our plan right now is that in the spring uh when when the weather turns we would we would begin vertical construction of our uh of our buildings our first buildings I'm working currently with a uh construction lender we plan to close on our construction financing next month and uh that is a pretty much a a 30,000 foot update on where we are right now um and that's the best timing I could give at this point uh like I said it's been a pleasure working with the township so far we feel uh very welcomed uh uh on on this project we um also want to stress the public that we like to be good neighbors we are all neighbors ourselves somewhere and like I said we're a family business so we like to be good neighbors we like to make ourselves available to people who live around the project who might have concerns and help answer questions and help um you know make the process as seamless as possible uh so that's where we are now and happy to answer any questions that the board might have or the professionals or the public okay thank you Mayu we have no questions okay Co I have no questions okay board members I'll just I'll just ask one on because I know there's a lot there's some public that want to ask you questions so I I'll give them the time that they deserve but are you familiar with all the or your company with all the requests and requirements because this obviously this was a pretty long application with some environmental concerns and are fully aware and prepared to handle everything that's been requested and by the board and the state and DP yes we've uh thoroughly gone through the application all of the prior hearings we uh I guess we're we're happy we weren't in in the hot seat for those are quite contentious and we we saw the history there um but uh we thoroughly uh vetted the project and are prepared to uh to move forward with it and with meet all the requirements yes any other board members okay going to make a mo ask for a motion open to public Mr chairman could I oh something sure um I wasn't involved when this was originally approved and I'm just looking at a little 11 by7 but I I just wanted to ask the applicant are you aware of the let's say storm waterer management issues that have occurred in the past along your um Eastern uh Western uh property line our our engineer as we had a discussion with uh and by the way we are keeping the same we're keeping uh the van CLE uh firm and Mike Ford as our as our engineer going forward and one of the reasons we're doing that is for that reason exactly because he's familiar with this and uh yes we are aware um and I don't know the answer this because I'm looking at one drawing but I do understand that your storm witer management for this site is underground I believe I believe so and that normally it's at grade and normally that Basin is a temporary sediment basin since it's underground that doesn't give you the opportunity is is there something that I'm missing on this drawing that there is somewhere on your site a temporary sediment Basin we we would have to consult with uh with with Mike Ford on that I I would ask that you get back to our office or David's office because I've been involved in projects where there wasn't and it generally leads to problems Downstream and I know if and if it's not on the plan I'm asking that maybe that someone should give that some consideration before breaking ground sure yeah we have a call with Mike tomorrow so I'll bring it up with him and one of us will reach out to uh to David thank you sure thank you so now motion open a public so moved second okay all in favor I I okay public come on up state your name and address for the record please here's your first neighbor neighbor Hi how are you are hi Grant colmer Taylor Avenue um these are these are words that I don't know so if you could provide some clarity and that's just because my ignorance I I heard the word mobilization I don't know what that means can you provide more details of what mobilization means sure absolutely so um typically when we get past the uh if we purchase a property and we go through the approval process typically we have um we consider that the approval process the design process once that's over and we've posted bonds and posted es grth we go into what we call mobilization which would be getting our contractors mobilized and uh out to the site and so they can start their work yes are you aware of the work that's already been done we are aware that there's been some site work done at this point yes could you comment on that to the board and to myself perhaps um I I can't comment to the exact scope of what's been done so far but we were just on the phone with our site contractor earlier today and there's been some uh site work possibly some grading that's G on but I don't have any details beyond that would it surprise you to know that basically the entire site you were looking at has been uh just uh devoid of all trees cleared thank you do not that does not Sur clear of all trees and there's a huge mulch pile now waiting just for the winter months suris that does not surprise me based on where we are great um and there's uh that's what site work means correct what else is imposed in sort of doing site work until you can break ground because you're not going to be able to do it now correct correct so typically um the the way that we would do this uh in during the winter months is there would be clearing what we call clearing and Grading uh so we would clear the site grade the site so that the elevations are you know in place and ready to go and then you'd start with infrastructure which would be uh water storm water uh sewer at that point is this just because of your time or could that have been is that how long is that period of time grading site work couple weeks month no it's hard to say with weather with um you know there there are various factors involved depending on how many other projects the the uh site contractor might have going at any particular time so it can vary um we're currently um estimating that the uh sitework portion of this is going to go on at least through to the spring um and of course that's assuming we don't have any major blizzards um between now and then but that's all of the site work is going to be done through the spring just getting the pad ready and everything else that's our hope at but not digging ground uh well I mean there there I guess there would be digging involved in the grading but certainly not putting any uh structures in until the spring that's the that's the thought at this point that could change um generally I will say this with with with construction it generally doesn't in in my experience um when we set a a time period for doing something it's rare that it would it would move forward I guess it is a possibility but typically uh if anything there could be some slight delays again due to weather um or availability of contractors materials in the past materials were a major issue they're less of an issue today but um during Co especially we had major problems getting materials on site would your contractors do you think be concerned about any flood mitigation that's happening right now that the site's cleared of trees which is a which is a flood sort of t or or or storm water management of some sort soaking in some of that water is that a concern for your for your engineers or construct officials I'm sure uh in the in the process of implementing the plan it's all taken into account by the engineers before they you know certainly if you're experiencing any specific problems um we'll make ourselves available if you need to reach us and how would we reach you I can give you my information would you be able to State it here sure I know a lot of our members might watch this AB absolutely so I'll give you my my my direct dial and then I would put you through to our uh uh project manager um our project manager's name for this project is Jack Kennedy not kidding that's his actual his name is Jack Kennedy uh Jack will be our project manager um you can reach me at the office at area code 732 7195 I am at extension 40 um and I will direct you to the appropriate person if you have any issues at all appreciate it thank you absolutely is it I might recall and I can't remember because it was so long ago usually they do the certain periods I can't excavate because of the bats I'm not sure if this application had that same restriction but usually it's in the winter time correct that that you have to be able that be clearing the trees clearing the trees yeah which they're all gone so yeah but I'm saying that this gets usually done around yeah this timing if I recall but that was a long time ago and I don't remember that's true and that would only be if this was Iden as a potential habitat I don't remember and I don't remember I wasn't there Susan gford Hunt Club Road um this project backs on to Johansson Avenue okay and you've already been in contact I guess with residents in that area um I don't know the specifics on it but I know they had heard from thema some of the homeowners over there I don't know if these were ch es in FEMA regulations or what happened is that going to affect your project at all or make any changes in what you were going to do to update that not that I've been made aware of at this point um that's not that I'm not that we've been made aware of I I could certainly ask our engineer but hopefully not if you're talking about the storm water RS they wouldn't take a they wouldn't affect they got those letters they wouldn't affect this project because it was approved prior to the change so they go by what was the regs that were at the time of the application okay thank you as all as all applications [Music] are I'm Maria jusik um the campus uh application is that part of the does that have a settlement agreement yes and so how does the change of ownership affect that settlement agreement the new owner is required to comply with all the requirements of the prior owner was a new was there a new settlement agreement uh created no um and so is there also a uh agreement with fair share housing no there was no agreement they they were they were not involved in this no the agreement that was entered into from the parties allowed for train transfer ship of ownership fair share was aware of it fair share approved it as did the court not as to this party but to the overall concept of a possible change in ownership and not just for this application but for any of the ones that went through the settlement approval so any applic any applicant that had a settlement agreement if the property changed uh ownership nothing changed as far as the settlements and no no no new no new uh um settlements had to be written with the new owners no they are required to accept the agreement between the original parties okay um so council's client basically took the project as is okay um would you know the reason why the uh previous owner um sold this property it's a question for Mr kler so yeah um I uh um I don't represent the the original owners I can't speak to the specific reasons why they wanted to sell it all I can tell you is that uh we wanted to buy it so how was how was this sale uh was this was was that that property put out there for sale or was there something privately done Miss Janice how is that relevant to what we're doing here tonight why the business decision was made owner prior because PRI owner just a minute [Music] m'am you've already asked if the settlement agreement with the prior owner is binding on the current owner and Council has already indicated to you that it was okay now you're asking the current owner who's giving the board an update why the prior owner sold the property completely irrelevant I wish I would the prior owner owner did all the work got a settlement agreement with the court with the judge and everything and then goes and sells it so question is compl irrelevant M janisac please move on to you it's irrelevant I think I I don't think it is irrelevant it's irrelevant and you can't answer it the the this this property has numerous uh wetlands and what I'm hearing is that uh trees were already cut down and and and uh work was started there um are there permits uh were permits obtained from the uh Department of Environmental Protection we have uh proceeded uh in accordance with all requirements um that have been uh uh uh that we're required to proceed that that were required to comply with at this point so the question is do you have permits from the uh the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection we have uh proceeded uh in accordance with all requirements uh that we are supposed to proceed thank you thank you for that broken record uh comment thank [Music] you good evening uh my name is Frank Derby I live in Montgomery but I'm here tonight as the second vice president of Temple bethl which is a neighboring uh land owner to the development he here primarily to meet Mr Kesler and to say hello uh and just to remind him and the board that we had a slightly different concern not to denigrate any concerns about environmental measures but that the concern was that after years of having that property undeveloped uh there's now an opportunity for uh Bad actors to take advantage of that and put us and our other tenants uh who represent all different faiths at some risk if you recall the property used to have an entrance that faced 206 but many years ago we flipped that around for among other reasons security purposes and so now the main entrance to the building actually faces Mr kesler's client's property we just asked at the board and Mr Kessler and his client keep in mind that there are some very serious security issues particularly in today's environment and we hope that's kept in mind perhaps to the extent of including Hillsboro PD who's always been a tremendous partner for us uh as your plans move through uh the building phase thank you that's it thank you think we've exhausted public nobody left anyone left videographer [Laughter] okay any final comments from the board um yeah I have one you know what first let me motion to close to the public so moved second all in favor I okay um Mr Castle you you mentioned um that you were going to do mostly underground work weather permitting you know site work um which I assume would include storm water and the tie-ins and whatnot like that's all um by the spring so maybe you if you could come back say in March April once that's done maybe before you you get start vertical construction and give us an update on how that went because that's a pretty sensitive area for the uh residents sure so I think we're supposed to come back every six months requirement I believe maybe we can time it so that um I don't know Jun think they I think they would like this time to come a little early only because of the time frame because of the time frame yeah sure and it's a key Point yeah you know so I think that so maybe as we move forward with uh the site work and we get a gauge on where we are um we can schedule that and I'll work with Mr Bernstein i' appreciate it sure absolutely [Music] y DAV do we have a tenative schedule for next year yet not in front of me it does exist okay um I think based on that we'll try to schedule this application from March April date we'll clear it with Council before we confirm it but sure okay works for us thank you okay perfect thank you thank you we do have something Samantha has something me okay uh yes we have the tentative 2025 meeting schedule his former assistant yes go ahead boss what are we looking for that's you lost me I will help you uh look at March April coun uh March 6 March 13th April 3rd April 10th April 3rd certain that would work that would that's fine and we'll let you know if we get held up for whatever reason we'll even look the even if you get held up just come on in on the third and everybody an update you yeah that's fine uh Mr chairman we'd ask for a motion to continue the and I'll put this in quotes hearing close quote on this application uh to Thursday April 3rd 2025 God at 7 pm or soon thereafter is a matter may be heard without any further notice I so moved I'll make that motion thank you fa a second second it thank you roll call [Music] please Mr Wagner yes Mr rtz yes Smith yes Mr vital yes Mr Deb yes commit me Leon yes may Chelli yes Vice chair PE yes chair sarach yes okay thank you right Mr Hoff thank you thanks for your time look forward to seeing you in warmer temperatures hopefully okay Michael you doing do you want to Mr chairman can I can I ask for a few minutes yeah well no Michael always gets to dictate which she's asking we're going to we're GNA pause right now I'm going to say for about 10 minutes we'll say 8 reconvene at 8:25 according to the clock okay we're back in session next up is TVC file number 23- pb-2 msv with time of decision of January 31st of next year this block 143 24.01 and 25 uh otherwise known as Valley Road and 183 Valley Road the applicant to consolidate two lots and the house on I believe on one of the Lots has already been demolished and seeking preliminary and final major subdivision approval SE bulk variances and waivers to subdivide approximately 5.48 3 acres I would say that's exact into three uh single family lots to be serviced by public sewer and well with a private roadway driveways storm water utilities and Associated improvements on property located in residential Zone and the EC did a review back in September and the application was adjourned from our October 10th meeting with notice and with that I will turn it over to council great thank you so much uh Mr chairman members of the board my name is Erica Edwards I'm a land use and Zoning lawyer here in New Jersey I'm here tonight on behalf of TV LLC uh the chairman has provided an overview of the subject property and the reason that we're here uh I'll let the board know that we have um we have one primary witness tonight um our project engineer sitting to my immediate right Frank Farrell of Grotto engineering uh we also have the applicant uh Mr uh VJ vas sitting uh off to my uh right here and behind me uh he is here if the board has any questions of him but primarily it's be Mr uh uh Mr Farrell doing the testimony so if we can swear him in I'll qualify him and which any testimony you give tonight is going to be the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth I do name Frank Farrell f a r r l l thank you very good Mr farell would you provide your educational and professional credentials um uh for the board please absolutely uh I have a professional engineering license in the state of New Jersey that's active and current I received that licens in 2014 I'm also a certified Municipal engineer as of 2016 um I can give you a longer detailed version if you'd like but that's the short [Music] one okay okay any objections have you have you testified before this board or any others I've testified before a number of other boards in the state of New Jersey and also in front of your environmental commission back in was it August SE September uh I've also appeared in Oldbridge in Highlands Hamilton New Brunswick sville South Amboy um I'm probably missing one or two in there but I have been appeared before other boards and been accepted thank you thank you okay hearing no objections we accept and welcome to Hillsboro thank you pleasure to be here so I'm here tonight to discuss the subdivision known as uh 183 Valley Road which is really a street address uh Block 14 43 Lots 2401 and 25 we're going to take a minute and spend a little bit more time than we might normally looking at the existing property because it's somewhat unusual okay we're going to mark this A1 and if you could just state in title block sure who the author is y dat on the application on the page want one page at a time absolutely so this first set that I'm I'll be going through is actually the plans that are submitted as part of the application package these haven't been uh edited or authored in any way uh when I do appear get to a sheet that has I'll make a note of it but this is sheet one of 11 on a major subdivision plan for TV LLC 183 Valley Road Block 143 Lots 2401 and 25 prepared by Grotto Engineering Associates signed by myself Frank farell is the date the last revised date on this plan is July 10th 24 thank you this will be A1 one is the cover sheet [Music] cover so rather than get jumping right into the Zone information we're going to take a quick look at sheet two which I suppose would be A2 same same plan set sheet two of 11 so we are oriented North to our right on this sheet and the two lots are again 2401 with my handy dandy little drawing tool here is this l lot on the lower portion of the screen uh it is an existing undersized lot that's just under one acre it's 0.999 Acres if the surveyor put that on there I might have round it up but um it is slightly UND Siz as the minimum is actually one acre and then Lot 25 is the other 4.48 nearly 4 and a half acres which is all of the rest of this property there so the unusualness doesn't just stem from the fact that Lot 25 extends nearly 784 ft into the property away from Valley Road but this these properties are also if you think of them as one unit are nearly bisected by Royce Brook tributary which is that dark gray swath uh running around the middle of this the middle of the screen and then the lighter gray area around that is the D I'm sorry it's the FEMA uh flood Hazard area so the the lot is unusually shaped uh the one of the existing Lots is existing under sized and they're much deeper than they would normally need to be and as a result we have to approach this in a way where we can get developable land on this property somehow so that leads us to Al while I'm on the existing conditions plan I'll also note that the property generally slopes in topography from the West to the east if you are west of the stream and from the East to the West if you're on the other side of the stream so it goes from roycefield Road into the roycefield brook tributary or from the areas uh generally west of the site across the site and down into the stream there is also a small isolated Wetland on the property that the applicant has already submitted for uh permits to uh to fill as part of I believe it's a gp6 um we intend we expect to receive that permit soon we've made final submissions and revisions and been discussing that with the D we don't expect an issue with that that brings us to sheet three same plan set same A3 A3 now this one actually has a slightly different revision date than the others because this is just a subdivision geometry plan so the revision date on this sheet is April 9th 2024 so what we are proposing out of the two lots in excess of 5.4 acres to create three lots uh the stream being a significant detractor from the developable portion of that existing lot 2401 uh in particular because the stream itself uh we're not building houses on the water and also due to the uh the Wetland area and then the burrows's stream Corridor it leaves a very small segment of I'm sorry I'm sorry thank you the Township's uh stream Corridor buffer leaves this very small little trapezoidal area out near roycefield Road as potential developable land so in reconfiguring the lot lines we are proposing three lots in total so starting from the left or the South we have proposed lot 2502 which is where if you're familiar with the site the existing building was more or less in this area then lot two is oh I'm sorry lot 253 is a flag lot in shape and extends the stem of which extends out toward Valley Road and then the third lot is 24101 which is extending that short lot that was near roycefield Road deeper into the site and occupying what was previously part of Lot 25 the reason for all of this again is to create access and developable uh developable land on the site or utilize the developable land on the site not to create it so that brings us to sheet four A4 A4 where we are depicting three single family homes a private road and an easement for the maintenance of that private Road and for the purposes of access to those three lots which will now have driveways that connect to that private road which then itself connects out to Valley Road uh I'm going to pause here about just describing the lots and I'm going to point out that there's a couple of variances associated with the application and in the lot configuration lot sizes and whatnot so the minimum lot size for the zone is one acre however when you have a flag lot configuration the minimum becomes three acres when you have a well I haven't discussed uh utilities but I think it was in the opening we were proposing Wells on each of these Lots there's an existing well there that is in was in good working condition we expect to find that the other wells will will have no issues the minimum lot size goes up from one acre to two acres and as a result we have a lot size or a lot area variance for lot 2502 which is the lot in the front which is 1.24 Acres so it exceeds the minimum for the zone unless you have a well then the middle lot is 2503 it's is 1.99 Acres which is just shy of the 2 acre requirement for uh Lots with well water and it is nearly an acre it's a little more than an acre shy when you have the flag lot configuration the other variants I'm going to point out here is lot front yard lot width at the front yard line and that occurs I think you can see that I think it's a red line I'm a little bit color blind but at that line on Roy Field Road which is not a condition that we're creating as part of the subdivision it's just the existing lot the shape of the lot dictates that that is and will remain a lot withth variance there was a one two 3 four there's a fifth uh variance noted in your plannner letter that describes Mr CO's letter that describes access uh from a I believe from a driveway let me refer to that um no principal use shall be served from one access Drive uh if we need that variance we are requesting it I'm not sure that when we have a private roadway it counts as a driveway I would my interpretation of that three axises or more than one access from one access point um wouldn't necessarily be transferable to a road which is what we're proposing um but if if that is the board's uh determination we would request that that variance be granted as as well um speaking of the road we'll stick on that for a second the road is proposed to be 20 ft wide and is conforming with the rsis standards for a rural Lane actually it exceeds the standard for a rural Lane which I believe is 18 ft in width so at 20 ft in width and with the Hammerhead configuration that I'll identify here we meet the requirements for Access as a rural Lane If This Were to be dedicated to the town which it's not again private road but it meets the requirement and it also meets the configuration required for a fire Tru as submitted to us the your fire department submitted a number of details that were acceptable for the truck turnaround and we picked from one amongst those and we designed the turnaround area based on that detail so that brings us to the actual Lots themselves uh we can we have dri fiveways that extend from that road into each of those lots I'll just note them here this is sort of a continuation off the [Music] end and these three homes which we are showing the two toward the rear I'll say 253 and 24101 are both 1500 foot proposed dwellings the total uh impervious coverage on them is compliant with the Zone uh there's a note that proposed lot 2503 which is that lot in the middle this which would be associated with that dwelling there is 14.9% imp prvious coverage proposed whereas 15% is permitted which is compliant uh and it's noted that there may be um some difficulty if the if some future owner would would want to expand on that we we would indicate that if somebody wants to request a variant to some future date they're welcome to but this plan is Works uh within the square footage and within the impervious coverage that were allowed it also a majority of that imp previous coverage stems from the fact that we have a private road which is technically on that lot if this if we were to consider that road to be its own separate lot or if it were to be dedicated or or a similar um occurrence the lot itself would have a substantially substantially less uh impervious cover um but be that as it may we're we're we're just indicating what the facts are it's 14.9% we 15% is allowable uh the remaining lot configuration is compliant with the zone as far as setbacks I can run through those uh very quickly we have the minimum lot width at the setback I mentioned the one the variance for 24101 is 107.2 Ft whereas 150 ft is required 2502 has a width of 26.8 Ft whereas 150 is is necessary uh required and lot 2503 has 269 ft whereas 150 is required for the yard setbacks we note there is a 50ft requirement and due to the due to the nature of this lot in the back here this 24101 the the front setback is actually like more than 400 feet U but uh the other ones the other two lots are 83 ft and 63.6 ft uh when we're we're measuring that relative to we can consider this house may experience this Dimension as a front lot as a front um and if we consider that it's actually connected to Valley Road it goes up considerably um but we're trying to be conservative with our measurements in that regard for the rear yards 40 feet minimum is required 47 for lot 2401 is proposed and then an excess of 150 ft is is proposed for the other two lots sidey yards are compliant with the Zone 30 ft is the minimum and they are all in excess of 40t the units per acre is 085 units per acre and each of these Lots is0 4781 or 0.50 units per acre I mentioned maximum perious coverage is in the zone in the allowable requirement for the zone and then the maximum Building height in stories is 2.5 stories or 35 ft and while we're not presenting architecturals at this time the intention to provide dwellings that comply with those requirements so we [Music] have I believe this is a are we on A5 look at my own drawing number here yes A5 which is the grading and drainage plan the grading for this site again is primarily from west to east in the developed portion which we're talking about which is to the west of the tributary and as a result we are capturing the the runoff that would come off the roadway and through grading and the use of Bio retention basins we are proposing four total storm water management features there's one here which collects a majority of the storm water from the private road there's a second Basin here which captures the runoff from various yard areas uh associated with uh lot 2502 there is a third Basin on lot 2503 which captures a portion of the runoff that would otherwise uh bypass the narrow long roadside sale and captures that before it ends up in the Stream and then the last one is this smaller one back here on 24101 so each lot more or less each feature so the road being one feature and then each of the three dwell dwelling units sort of each have their own uh storm water management system and this is this was a challenging site to make this to make this work there's there's a difficulty in um locating these features anywhere else because water tends to like to go down downhill uh and as a result we have these features located no nearer to the stream than is absolutely necessary but we also needed to make sure that they were going to capture the runoff from the areas that they needed to in order to provide the mitigated mitigative effects that they are intended to provide and in that regard we are we believe we are compliant with the D's latest standards and the township standards for storm water management that includes uh the green infrastructure bmps and the as a because we have bio retention basins they're small drainage areas they have um they're not just regular open detention Basin there's going to be vegetation in there that assists in treating and managing that storm water uh before discharging it uh Downstream the on staying on S water for a second um Mr mayhew's letter indicated a number of comments regarding s water management and we we intend to provide uh the information necessary uh to satisfy Mr Mayu um in the event that you choose to act favorably on its application just wanted to get through the site plan or the subdiv it's not a site plan the subdivision portion of this first uh before we initiated a substantial amount of additional field work including soil testing and locating additional treat which we'll get to uh in a minute but uh the maximum the proposed limited disturbance for this is as narrow as we could make it uh it's still in excess of an acre as as a result we are a major development and we comply with the various features that we're that I'm documenting here with the ordinance requirements uh we also I mentioned have a d application for that Wetland and I'm sure that they would have um raised an issue at that point too if they if they had a concern regarding Stone Water Management sure the next sheet here is A6 is the utility plan associated with this set this sheet is also dated April 9th 2024 the utilities on this site are public sewer and three private Wells uh the sewer will run down the private driveway and the the easement associated with the driveway and access we we imagine will also extend to the improvements underneath it so that will be a shared maintenance of that sewer system and the wells again the wells are provided we have them here they're small dots because Wells are not very big but there is a well here there is a proposed well back here as tentative locations ultimately this will be approved uh the locations everything would be approved by the health department and the other entities that have jurisdiction over that but we also made sure to space them out appropriately based on uh the requirements in your ordinance uh we don't meet the lot size again we're asking for a variance for the lot size but we do maintain the minimum spacing required for these Wells which we believe is important so that we don't have um any issues as people live there and utilize them the that that about sums up the the utilities uh there isn't a lot more here it's three single family homes it's sewer and water to to get them up and running uh any other utilities would be um installed underground as as is typical whether it be electric or gas the we're going to skip the drainage area plan this was this was submitted um if we need to refer to it uh it would be I guess A7 uh this documents really what those basins are the elevations of those basins the different planting that occur within those basins cuz they're they're more specific than just just you throw some grass on the ground and move on um but they are designed in accordance with the Department of Environmental Protections best management practices for Bio retention [Music] basins we also have a soil erosion settlement control plan already uh and we've received certification plan certification from uh the district A8 uh yes thank you A8 all [Music] right uh I'm going so that we don't have to just log sheets that I don't intend to talk about the I believe the you're not talk about we're not there we go all right so the remainder of this set is the details so we're just going to stick to what needs to be stuck [Music] to so I mentioned the wetlands permit we also have the soil the soil erosion certification where water service to the Wells have we have a will serve letter from the Hillsboro Municipal Utilities Authority I believe that we submitted as part of one of our back and forths with um the planning department the stream Corridor is uh an important thing to touch on here and that actually brings me to are we on A9 I believe all right A9 so the stream Corridor is an area that is 150 ft from the top of Bank associated with a stream or similar water body and or inclusive of steep sloped wetlands and other similar regulated features that abut that 150 fot that 150 fot buffer so on this sheet I've changed the color of the stream buffer line to be pink so the the required buffer is 150 ft from that dark feature that is again uh the Royce Brook tributary and then the various other colors are I'll I'll explain them as we go here so the Basin for 2503 encroaches on the stream buffer but no more than 75.6 ft and as a result we're proposing that the buffer in that location be averaged with the buffer on the opposite side of the tributary such that if we're encroaching by 74.4 ft on the west side of the stream we're going to dedicate additional land or compensate with that by 74.4 ft uh which is actually a greater total area the encroaching area if I zoom in on this is 7,464 square feet is that that red shaded I'll see if I get these both on the screen at the same time there we go that red shaded area is 7,464 square ft and the stream quarter compensation in green on the opposite side is 7,610 and not only that we were we were offer a bonus as was indicated U by Mr K's letter uh there was a recommendation that we that we consider uh putting the entirety of the lot that fronts on roycefield road or at least this portion of it into conservation easement uh and we would be agreeable to doing that which benefits the stream Corridor buffer and the conservation eement area on the site by an additional 6 67 ft so if we just used the averaging which is permitted by the ordinance we would be compliant and in excess of the area that we are disturbing or encroaching on that by a little over 100 square F feet but we're we have about 700 or 760 square fet of total um compensation provided as part of this plan also if we were and I don't believe that we need a waiver but uh the things that would be permitted to encroach in this uh in this area basins and their outfalls are specifically noted as one of the allowable um conditions that you could receive a waiver for again I don't think we need a waiver I believe that if the board were to accept the averaging plan that we're presenting we are more than compliant with the stream Corridor buffer I think I've touched on most of the bigger items in any of the letters I've certainly identified the variances I believe that the variances regarding lot size and shape are precipitate from this very unusually shaped and uh regulated piece of property and it making we are making the best use of the developable portion of the site that can be made uh if you'd like me to go through the letters uh don't intend to go through them in their entirety um I I I took the liberty of uh speaking with Mr Mayu yesterday and earlier today actually to make sure that um we were on the same page coming into this meeting and I believe that we can generally comply with the statements or the requests made um in his letter I'm going to point out one or two of them that I think we slightly differ on uh one is that we there's a a recommendation that we provide a parking lane or a similar feature related to that private roadway uh we we submit that the driveways and the dwellings that are proposed have sufficient parking for the units for the for the dwellings themselves and that we wouldn't necessarily encourage uh parking along that private roadway it also doesn't benefit the storm water management and other uh regulated issues or other issues associated uh with this development wherein making the road water would mean more impervious coverage which would mean more bigger basins and and whatnot and we'd rather we'd rather not we'd rather the people who live here park in their driveways and not make use of that as a public or it's not public but uh a parking area um the other one was uh we intend to provide additional information regarding the flood Hazard area that's identified on the site per FEMA I did look at that and we are well over six feet above the FEMA elevation and the even if you do the adjustment for based on the D's current Inland flood protection rules for flal water bodies which only requires a three-foot adjustment we're we're like double uh the elevation and as a result we there's no issue here with the flood plane we're not in the flood plane we're not encroaching on the flood plane we don't need a flood Hazard area Control Act permit the D who's reviewing this for Wetlands isn't making us get a flood Hazard permit as part of any of that application either they're satisfied with the explanation that we provided uh and we believe that we can provide additional information to the satisfaction of the board and your engine [Music] I think that about rounds it out if I've missed something I'm sure somebody will let me know okay Mr Mayu thank you Mr chairman um I want to commend Mr Ferrell for an excellent exhibit on the stream Corridor um impacts if we could only get all the applicants to do something like that I think it would help out Mr faroh and I had spoke about this spe specific topic um I'll refer you to our review letter dated December 2nd on [Music] the page six we had three comments on the stream quarter um Mr frell in my opinion has demonstrated that um his quarter averaging plan would meet the intent of the ordinance and it would um alleviate the need for the waiver as pointed out in item three so it would eliminate comment number three um as I understand Mr furl has testified that he'll meet the the engineering detail comments as far as winter management and utility and Grading and our office believes that those items can be addressed uh so I just want to talk about a couple other items on the review letter um under page two general comments Mr Ferell talked about the parking uh Lane certainly the plan has submitted with a with a 20 foot wide cartway in a 40 foot easement um meets the geometry requested in rsis for a rural Lane um which requires that there be less than 200 average daily trips which certainly three lots would produce less than that so it does meet rsis our office would simp would defer to the board whether they uh feel there's any potential future parking issues or whether the parking can be provided on lot we we take no exception to either way um I agree with Mr Ferell that um looking at the plane elevations it appears that the site is out of the New Jersey flood hasard area design flood but we've agreed that it should be um noted on the plan just to document that the work is outside that area we're not requesting that he go get approval from the DP we just want to see the line on the [Music] plan um if you turn to page five under traffic comments um uh number one I understand Mr furl has received a detail from the fire department as to an appropriate kurn but we would our office would just like to make sure the Turning movement is shown on the plan and any potential easements that might be required will capture that truck making the turn sure and I believe you've agreed to to add that we can certainly provide that auto turn and then under item two um we would like to see appropriate um information on Valley Road making sure there's appropriate sight lines coming out of this private Drive um it is a busy road um and I believe you've I don't know if you testified but if you can now you're agreeing that you will provide that information I believe it is reasonable it's a reasonable request and we'll we'll provide information to your satisfaction okay good [Music] that addresses all of our comments Mr chairman uh I'll leave and defer to Mr K to give him the Thunder uh we agree there are five variances and um and they've been discussed but maybe Mr K wants to elaborate on some of them thank you for the opportunity to bring the Thunder that was quite an introduction um Mr frell again thank you I'll try to live up to it um Mr frell thank you for um and for the applicant to you know to take in consideration all of our comments especially uh with roycefield Road and the averaging of the of the stream Corridor so we we certainly appreciate it um my only concern in one of my comments was the proposed impervious coverage going basically almost to the max limit at 14.9 uh percent so the concern for my office is just because of History here in town uh we have other applications in which the dwellings were built basically Max Capacity and then in the future it's led to the Future homeowners which who who were not the applicants to build the house to then come to the board of adjustment to ask for relief of of variances and things like that uh so one of the asks is there any consideration to try to reduce the um size of the dwelling um because otherwise essentially what is happening with the proposal is this proposal if granted could eliminate any argument that a future owner could have in trying to seek uh relief for a culk variance for impervious coverage as a self-imposed hardship while that might not be the current applicant's issue uh the thought is is there any solution to try to propose dwelling size so that there could be future imperious coverage right now I think there's about 59 square feet left and even someone trying to come in and putting 100 square foot shed which they're not usually 100 square feet to be honest with you um so I I believe that the application as we've submitted complies with the ordinance and that up to a building up to about 1500 square F feet uh would be appropriate on the site based on the fact that really it's it's the private roadway that that kind of does that lot in uh if you will for for lack of a of a better phrase um but it's compliant uh and the amenity on this site I believe that I haven't I haven't checked today um but are are decks and pools considered impervious coverage as part of the application part of the Zone okay the pool surface itself hasn't been that might not always be the case fure yes all right I believe that this application uh complies with the with the requirement of the zone and if there's an if there's an owner that wishes to purchas this with the idea to expand on it that they would have to do their own due diligence regarding their ability to do that in the future um I don't really see a way unless you want us to ask for a variance now which um we didn't think was really necessary um but the the other two lots it really ultimately I believe it comes down to the applicant their ability to to um Market this property and to uh be responsible to themselves and to their to their the purchaser uh if they want to build a smaller house and have more amenity space outside that might be hardscaped then that would be a choice that they make when they when they choose to do that I agree with you that uh the board cannot ask you to uh or even Grant variance if you're not going over 15% I definitely agree with you there uh and up for the board's consideration and also for the applicant to consider uh possibly um a possible deed notice just bringing to the Future purchasers awareness of uh of the house going to the 14.9% I will defer to the board again just bringing this up with experience and issues that unfortunately we have seen here in town because the township uh while there is a maximum impervious coverage we don't generally in our residential zones uh have a Max limit for the for the building itself which would have automatically created some wiggle room for other improvements uh so I will leave that to the board uh for their consideration I have uh nothing else to add I'll also point out that as far as imp previous coverage goes I mentioned that the minimum width for a rural Lane in rsis is I believe 18 feet but we're proposing a 20 foot wide Road that's not because we wanted a wider Road I'd love to have saved on impervious coverage and been able to distribute that in some other way around the site the fire department requested specifically the pavement width being 20 ft uh to accommodate the apparatus that may be used uh to fight a fire in an involved structure at this at this location I'd love to save two feet off the whole length of the road but I I don't know that we can and also comply with the fire department's request for that with Mr chairman how how the discussion was going on with Mr KO I was taking a look at the plan and that idea came to me as well certainly 18 foot is the required width in according to rsis and it allows up to 200 trips a day with three homes were going to be less than 60 trips 50 trips a day it's very minor so I wonder if and I don't ever want to contradict the chief but in this case I wonder if the board would consider maybe decreasing the access road to 18 ft wide Within the back half of the property which is along the lot number 2503 so we leave 20 foot wide at the front but then downsize it to 18 ft wide beginning at lot 2503 conditioned upon that our office would discuss this with the fire chief to make sure he's comfortable with it that would produce 400 yeah a significant produce 400 square ft of impervious cover that could be banked for future homeowners and maybe help make Mr K's office gives you some breathing room maybe could I could I you know that turnaround that you have there for the trucks M does it make sense again to save impervious for this lot that's getting screwed so to speak make the driveway for the second house share some of that that impervious so move that te over to the existing driveway and that becomes now a shared driveway that is used as the turnaround could you could you pull that up the impervious so we can reference that there that's a I wish I thought of it actually before we got here I'm I'm a I'm I'm a dirk guy it's good no it's good uh okay this this sheet which we're going to refer to let me go back this one's a four sheet four um I if I can crudely draw I believe what you're describing is take this T MH and basically put that here so that this this home ends up with a signicant or more to the left or yeah so further that way yeah so it's between the two buildings right at the property line the other direction right there over here okay and while you're doing that Mr farell I'll just interject so everything in Gray is impervious no I'm sorry please clarify that I didn't mean to cut you cut you off but no uh the the gray associated with the dwellings is just to note um a small rectangle on a on otherwise uh on a sheet with a lot of other lines on it that's the dwelling that's these uh areas here this shaded area corresponds with the easement area which is shown on A3 I get rid of the other lines on this sheet no I won't okay um but that that gray area is the easement area the impervious coverage is not on this plan um highlighted or or identified in any specific color or shading but it's more limited to this area here where we have the 20 foot wide Road at least as far as the easan is concerned this is all impervious in here in that in that otherwise larger gray shaded area so if I want to understand Mr leani you wanted to look at moving the K turn and share it with the lot 24.11 oh we could share the impervious the the burden of the impervious coverage with the the lot that doesn't necessarily have an issue I'm not sure if the chief wanted the the road turn around at the end for convenience sake or anywhere we can move that to share the impervious with another lot or the or that driveway so the drive way at that I'll call the middle house yeah you go you put it right next to the side of it put it sort of over here or I I believe your other your other suggestion sort of do this with it either way um such that that imperious coverage end giv relief of impervious to that c a lot because that person's going to want to have a patio yeah and and a walkway and God forbid we would have to have them in front of our Board of adjustment uh in in six months so I know you and and we we'll work out M um can figure out maybe the best alternative to place that to give that middle lot some some relief of impervious and um as far as the reduction of from 20 to 18 I don't think that's going to affect how many fire trucks can make it in and out of that still going Drive put them side by side so yeah but um I think if we move the turn around and and that's part of a relief there I think that would help um I don't know Mark if you think that that's I I I think moving it North because I'm sure the chief wants to keep it at the end so moving it North and sharing it would lot 24101 would be the logical location Frank if you want to sketch that again yeah cuz that's the bigger lot too that's got like 2% impervious yeah correct it's kind of it's hard to drop it's at 3.7 right so it has a lot of lot of available land yes so we can move it either all the way in we can move it all the way into that lot or more into that L probably for the chief Mak sense because that's gives them ability to get all the way in with their apparatus MH I might suggest moving the house a little farther away from the turn there's going to be a couple things we got to look at when we make that adjustment sure could you not put that easement with the end lot I mean you you have one flag lot you actually have two flag Lots we we have one flag lot the other one happens to share access it has because it technically it connects out to roycefield um but you can experientially it's going to feel a little bit like a flag lot because you're going to drive down the shared driveway right but what I'm asking is why not what's the last one is it 01 01 can you put the the the lane with that lot instead of the middle [Music] lot no do to do anything you just it's just where the which which piece of property It's associated with yeah that's what we're talking about I don't know whole not that I understand in instead of this being associated with this lot here let me let me zoom in and then you can point better can't reach it yeah let me get that a little lower for you hold on hold on there you go instead of this being associated with this lot it's associated with this lot the whole thing well it's an easement oh it's okay so if we read it would no longer have Frontage that lot yeah right so that so I wasn't sure if that's what the problem would be so Lot number the middle lot 2503 achieves Frontage and it meets the ordinance requirement of a 25- ft pole out on Valley Road the end or the farthest rear lot meets Frontage criteria because it has Frontage on Royce field down here right zoom out making us all dizzy okay I think you get the biggest bang um by just moving the fire K turn completely on to the rear lot because there's so much as you said Sean so much additional land on that lot okay well ultimately it won't be a variance condition but I believe what we're discussing is we'll agree to modify the kurn area such that we provide even though we're not requesting a variance for impervious coverage but less impervious coverage on that middle lot 2503 and would it be the board's desire if the fire chief was amable because from an engineering standpoint an RSI standpoint that lane could be decreased to 18 ft wide and that would pick up additional impervious I think it would make sense [Music] Mark can you um or um Mr Farrell I should know that my my wife's maiden name um can you describe how you know being that we're now doing all these new storm Rags how that triggers in with all these bmps and and this and the basins that are being proposed um I don't know if there's infiltration planned here as as well as um holding capacity and release sure because I'm sure that that will come up because in the public because it's the the stone Water Management designed for this site complies with the current D standards which were revised in 2021 not the the flu was 23 the the the current uh D St standards for stone water management for major developments that includes the calculation of both the existing and proposed flows for today's 210 and 100e storms and the projected or future values for the same events in the year it's roughly the year 2100 U so not only are we calculating storm water management for the two10 and 100-year storm as they exist today we're calculating those same things for a 100 years from now uh the BMP and the D storm water management regulations under njac 78 both identify a number of ways to satisfy the requirements one of them uh and there's actually a tiered list of tables uh but one of them in the one of the preferred I'll say methods is small scale bio retention systems that treat storm water relatively close to the source that they are attributed receiving runoff from so the reason we don't have one big Basin even though making one big Basin in one outfall is generally more cost- effective is there's a maximum contributory drainage area for those basins which is the land that's that sheds water in to such a basin is capped uh we're well under that cap um we also have again multile so each dwelling roughly has its own little storm water management system bio retention systems um the way they tend to function is we design that for the water quality storm which is the first event I mentioned the 210 and 100 but there's also the water quality storm that water quality storm generates 1.25 inches of rain in about 2 hours and that typically picks up all the sticks the dirt the uh oils and whatnot might come off a road surface which is the primary uh pollutant contributor for uh that the DP considers it's motor motor regulated motor vehicle surface the vegetation in these systems is actually engineered we don't again it's not just grass seed there's a specific list of plantings that are preferred for these basins that we're providing in addition the outfalls or the Orphus the outlet control structures that stop or store or slow down water uh from leaving the site are also designed in accordance with those standards so for the for the water quality storm the requirement is that we recharge the whole thing that that before we let any other water out of the Basin the elevation of the water quality storm is calculated first and then we start basically we start from there we start at zero for the 210 and 100 um and each of the four of these systems all were calculated with the current the projected uh the water quality all of the other requirements that would be required under those rules uh reach charge is one that comes up as I don't believe it's actually required but nonetheless we're providing it um typically when you're deforesting a large area and I don't mean taking down several trees on on a site I mean actually deforesting removing Woody vegetation and whatnot is typically the time at which the d looks at um the more significant recharge requirements for uh for a site such as this uh nonetheless again we are recharging the at least the water quality store because we don't have a way to let water out uh until that storm is passed through uh if there's another facet to that that you'd like me to expand upon I'd be happy to no I just you're you're you're providing all that you got tension recharge it's designed so the county actually the county controls the bridge that's just down it's just off the sheet um the county had a similar request uh to provide a more uh to provide additional uh storm water management information a very similar to Mr May's comments and we intend to satisfy theirs in the same manner uh we're going to have to do the same work to satisfy both agencies that the system that we've designed and will construct is adequate and appropriate and meets the regulations and I didn't see in your list of plans here maybe I missed it the any of the tree mitigation um for trees taken down and being replaced on site we we requested I believe like a a partial waiver or a timing waiver from that requirement we intend to provide the list of trees to be removed moved and the replacement trees to the satisfaction of the board and your engineer and planner um the expense associated with going out to identify those trees and whatnot is something we prefer to defer um to a point where we can for that as resolution compliance if the boy does choose to act favorably how do we monitor that when they tag them and we go we can provide a tree inventory plan uh that would identify the trees on the site we would then cross reference that with a limited disturbance that we have not which trees are to be removed at which point we can do the calculation for the replacement trees that would be required under the ordinance and that's provided before you take the trees down so we can verify that it would be provided at the time that you required to provide it we would we would make it we would suggest to the board to make it a condition of approval that this um mitigation plan is prepared and available for our office to review and approve prior to signing the plans 100% and just clarification you turn that on uh just for clarification um is it the intent to that the applicant would be able to comply with the mitigation um requirements in terms of the ratio for replacement I believe so yes okay and if we if we would need a variance I imagine we'd be required to come back to the board thank you just clarification right if we were going to ask for variance we'd be doing it now I just wanted to make it clear because U Mr Mayu and I won't have any jurisdiction to if you were to try to right ask for something we can't you I can't ask Mr Mayu or you for a variance in three weeks um the intent here is to provide attractive homes uh and and properties for somebody to purchase and I believe that the Landscaping goes hand inand with that uh there's there's natural uh stream to the rear of the property that I believe is an attractive feature for somebody that wants to be relatively close to to Nature and to not have a n nobody's going to build in that stream right so that becomes an attractive feature and also screening between the neighbors we intend to provide Landscaping so that the neighbors aren't walking out the front door staring at each other [Music] um something that you'd want to find and you'd want to live in right you're going to buy a nearly two acre piece of property we want it to uh look like it got [Music] it I have a question about the the roadway and the rsis um I guess if you could just I I don't know too much about rsis can you explain to me the the um the regulations for the rural road like Mr M you mentioned about the traffic like what's the ex exact calculation to make it qualify to for a rural road the qualifications for a rural road are traffic not exceeding I think it's a range of 2 to 500 trips per day uh as calculated uh based on available industry standard trip generation rates and that's typically how often do you leave your home right you leave your home in the morning to go to work you come back at night you go out shopping so they've averaged that into a calculation that you can do and for three homes it's nowhere near 200 uh trips per day um by by I haven't done the calculation but my experience tells me that we're not even close so there's a list there's a hierarchy of roads in the RS are the residential site Improvement standards that dictates features like roads and other residential development all across the state of New Jersey doesn't matter what the local ordinances it does but uh if you conflict with rsis you're actually required to comply with rsis um first or identify that you're requesting a waiver from it to that end there are again a hierarchy of streets there's rural Lo roads there's Alleyways there's residential roads there's collector arterial major arterial all the way up through 287 right interstate highways of these types of Roads the r rural Lane is one of the smaller narrower uh less trafficed one again between 200 and 500 trips a day um is before a road would other be classified as one of the higher uh tiered or classifications of roadway and each of those in the rsis if you were to look at a table comes with its own minimum cartway with um and Associated average daily traffic it also provides recommendations regarding Road width if you were to provide parking um and suffice it to say this actually slightly exceeds the minimum requirement for the rural Lane in that it is 20 ft wide rather than 18 uh it also the rsis also provides um details for how thick that pavement set cross-section should be uh and actually I believe the fire department also provided uh a minimum pavement thickness uh so that they would be able to drive a firet truck down it because we're not just talking about passenger vehicles we want to make sure that an ambulance a fire truck a garbage truck Etc can all access these properties through that roadway and it's been designed and the details would confirm that that is the case that it complies with rsis and other applicable standards got it no I appreciate that um is the is the reason it's a rural road is have anything to do with its location or no not at all nope uh if you were to put that road in the middle of New York City and found some way to make sure that there were only 200 only 200 or no more than 200 chips on it it's more a classification of how it's used not where it is got it thank you I appreciate that now my second question about the road is um the parking that there's no parking considered on this road right there's no parking Lane that's going to be um correct adhered to uh does rsas uh require any sort of signage saying that there is no Park uh I don't traffic signage gets into the mut C CD or the manual manual on uniform traffic control devices and also I'm going to the the local police department also has title 40 um has a significant leeway in how they would control what would be public rights of we which is not this um as it's a private road I believe it the owners would be on the owner to make sure that the road is maintained and signed in a manner uh appropriate for the site that said if all of these homeowners are living there and there's an agreement there's going to have to be an easement and an agreement as to who how they all own and maintain the road um they all got to play nice so if they also all have parking on their own on their own segments of the of the driveways so I don't believe that parking along the road becomes an issue if we wanted to add signage we could um but I don't believe that that really lends itself to we maybe we put a sign that says you know Private Road no parking no public parking but well Frank can we agree now that there should be at least one sign facing each way that says no parking we can put a sign up that says uh Private Road no parking or no parking anytime okay thank [Music] you quick question any reason why um Wells and not uh public water uh public water is apparently very expensive at this location uh is it New Jersey American what's the yeah yeah they have an easement also the I'm sorry on the certified list they says there's an easement so doesn't mean there's there's water running through but right they have rights to so to extend the water M down um I'll say about 650 ft would be prohibitively expensive relative to um the the the improvements that we're proposing we're not providing a water man that's GNA that's GNA satisfy six8 10 12 dwellings it's three um so adding tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of dollars or about $100,000 to each property uh it's just not feasible it's not practicable uh Mr chairman if I may um for the board's edification uh the Board of Health and the health department have uh regulations on the books that if for some reason these Wells are not able to perform they would be required to to in in the future so just know that there is that uh safety [Music] net U Mr Farrell does um does your impervious calculation how does it currently treat the driveways impervious as impervious correct so it's included in there okay anything that would reasonably be considered imperious cover coverage including roadways uh buildings we're not proposing a lot of sidewalk or anything else but anything that you would probably reasonably think is impervious has been calculated in in that number okay it's not stone or that's why I'm saying it's not it's in the calculation which is fine it's calculation if we pulled the if we pulled the paved driveways out and made them stone that would also reduce the impervious coverage that's why I'm asking I didn't know if it was if that's how it was calculated but it's not so you were more conservative exactly yeah okay um how about the uh the storm water management features um and maintenance of those mhm is that up to each individual property owner or do you I believe that it's going to be a requirement of the group of homes as a maintenance agreement to maintain all of the structures uh because of the way that in part the D rules are written regarding systems like this so when you have a major development you're not allowed to just say hey uh you homeowner let's say we had 10 Lots right and you build nine of them are homes and one of them becomes a storm owner management base or one of them has a basin on it you can't just tell that homeowner that they have to maintain it the requirement U from the D is that we provide a maintenance plan that would identify the group of homes uh as responsible for maintaining that but that's not uncommon for this lot this development anyway we already have that situation with the water um I'm sorry with the road and with the sewer out on the the environmental commission asked about it so I'm kind of asking just to clarify what correct the maintenance of it would be uh as a as a maintenance agreement shared amongst the homeowners and uh so so that kind of leads to another question and this might not be for you but what else would fall under that purview is there an HOA I mean you talked about garbage removal there's going to be uh recycling pave uh maintenance of the road as needed and snow removal so what I don't know what else is there an HOA that that's I guess again probably not yours but what other things would fall under that I believe that it would fall under a general maintenance agreement uh would be the applicant's preference uh we did discuss that briefly before uh our our hearing today um I think reasonably You' you've touched on most of it it would be the sewer the road the maintenance of the um the stor motor management Basin thank you um potentially garbage removal I'm not sure that that would be required to be under the maintenance agreement I imagine each homeowner could could find a way to um have their garbage uh well you might have three trucks driving up the driveway instead of one they they should start talking to each other figuring out we should consolidate this cuz why are we all paying for a truck F but uh uh I'm not aware of anything else that would that would be required to be in such an agreement uh but we've just named about four or six things that would make a lot of sense in there I the the maintenance agreement for the pension basins would have to be applied to the township so that we can make sure that taken care of corre yeah uh that that's that's also in are the the standards for theep I'm sure there's an ordinance requirement you have for it but we we would Supply an operation and maintenance manual and whatnot associated with these features as well I believe actually that was probably in in the storm water management comments that we kind of breeed over earlier so yeah so just kind of getting to the whole concept of an HOA does that need to be defined as part of whether the resolution or part of the Deeds have to be a conditional resolution okay condition approval that the parties there VA homeowners association that the documents be provided to the township for our offices review as well as applicable Township department and all parties would have to enter and have to be reported okay part of the if I may also in our ordinance we have it laid out on chapter 1885 5 homeowners association and how it functions and everything like that it's my understanding is it's it's typically required right so do we have involves basins and we have to state that as part of the resolution that's required because I'm I'm just looking a community impact statement it was very vague insane you know just covered the private roadway and just said it may be maintained by the applicant or another private entity so I'm just looking to see that we should get that defin with all all the other I guess nuances I would recommend that it would be included in the resolution so that there's no there's no confusion at all uh usually our engineer our in-house engineering department is usually involved in in terms of enforcing that and making sure that those Agreements are done um but yes it it would be helpful if it stated in resolution and can I just ask Mr Bernstein the resolution ultimately would get filed with the deed related to the subdivision so it's clearly out there for notice to anybody that might be purchasing this property it would be I would I would recomend there no dispute by any of the potential homeowners or future homeowners that part of repord of any acquisition of property right and but also part of the deed for the individual subdivision of the Lots right that it gets recorded at that point it would have to be would have to be have the acquisition of reporing the individual Deeds so each the problem is it's got to be recorded at the time of the filing of the overall deed and subdivision Deeds as well right that that makes sense so that it puts clear notice to any purchaser of the property of what they're getting into and what their obligations are going to be relative to each individual lot because it's it's a a huge undertaking for a small um a small development if you will um for the property owners so there needs to be clear notice as well as the impervious surface issue for the properties one of the challenges one of the challenges we we do experience is the actual organization of the of the homeowners associate itself because essentially what happens during the development of the Lots the the developer owner of the property is essentially acting as the homeowners association up to the point of then selling those properties and then there's usually a little bit of a challenge in getting the property owners to all do what they're supposed to do but it's just a function it's there's nothing to fix it other than uh we have the rules in place to enforce it and they'll be motivated because I know one of the other things I didn't get to mention was the uh liability insurance it's going to be for the common gram which is the roadway right and if the township had to maintain anything it's Pro Raa we start to you know basically start to charge all the right is a Township under the obligation because you don't want to get caught in a trap it gets to decide to do it if it wanted to per the ordinance it's everything's in chapter 18855 so there's enough teeth teeth in there to protect it Township okay and I'm trying to think oh as far as dwellings because I know obviously we don't have an architect here so we don't know what they're going to look like is is there a plan to have basements yes okay then questions from May any concerns with water tables I'll I'll point out that I believe we're going to do some soil testing as part of the swim Water Management uh requirements uh which should give us an indicator of whether those basements are going to be problematic regarding High around what are other similar issues so then that's got to be I guess also part of the resolution or it'll be up to Mr Mayu to make the final call whether or not basement would be allowed based on those results we don't know what's in the ground until we we don't know what's down there until we start digging holes but the soil's information was favorable for the design at least okay give you more to and I'm I'm also reminded of the fact that the existing dwelling there which is that one on 2502 does have a basement that basement is still there um and I don't believe I'm not aware issues I'm not aware of any issues that the basement experienced okay and the last time qu is more for you because I know there's a mention in here in the community impact statement about round three affordable housing requirements would this application slip into round four they still have a contribution obligation well coing to the cited ordinance it's it applies to five or more dwellings five or more dwelling unit require the creation of housing requ contrib to the affordable housing TR right does for every development in town irrespective of size okay and just to P piggyback on Mr burn right and at the time of Co is is when is when those funds are collected through the building department that then go to finance and back into the affordable housing trust fund and the rates for that is stated clearly in the affordable housing uh ordinance BYT okay yeah I just want to make sure there's clear understanding because there was a statement in here saying proposed development essentially doesn't uh the affordable housing order is not applicable to this application not general not required to F right they are to contribute right [Music] okay any other questions comments before I have one more just curiosity question uh is there where's the nearest fire hydren I believe we're going to end up providing a fire hydrant oh no wait a minute there's [Music] one I don't know if I can find it to yeah off hand I don't recall I believe in my preparation I saw one there it is so it is along the property's uh Southern Frontage so are you required to provide any additional ones on this site or no well the challenge is there's no water going it's well cuz it's well it's well got it but with that one fire is that sitting on the property itself so no it's in the right that's going to be a Township uh contribution it's on the other side of the road correct yes is it already there yeah it exists it exists it exists okay okay it doesn't it's on the opposite edge of pavement or uh yeah it's on the opposite edge of pavement across the street from the exist from the dwelling that was there okay thank you that just brings up so the water there's a water mean out in Valley Road then correct and despite the fact that there's a water line there New Jersey Americans Waters cost to extend that main into the site is very high so so they're treating this then the private road as as a need to put a main did you discuss just providing service I I did not have that conversation with them directly certainly didn't the conversation come up to at least the front lot tap off the main directly and the front lot well the existing front lot has a well uh which which if we we could connect there there might is an opportunity I suppose but that well serves that front lot without issue but is there a reason you wouldn't investigate talking to New Jersey American about simply extending Services instead of extending a main I believe we can have that discussion with them and let you know what the result of that is especially since we're dealing with lots that are under the 2 acre MH we can ask um certainly but uh if if the board desires I'd like to make sure we get communication from the applicant as to yeah I I think that's reasonable just at least have a discussion okay okay any other comments otherwise I'm going to ask for a motion open to public moved second okay all in favor I I if there's anyone from the public that would like to ask this witness any questions of his testimony this evening please come forward state your name and address for the [Music] record Susan Gord Hunt Club Road um I have one question on the wells you have one existing well and you would be drilling two additional Wells for the other two homes that's correct okay are there any surrounding prop properties that are dependent on Wells that might be impacted by the two new wells you're aware of I don't know however the proposed Wells are located far enough apart from one another there's a minimum well spacing requirement B in the ordinance and they meet that requirement and I believe they would meet that requirement relative to a neighbor's lot uh in in part because of where they're situated or proposed tentatively to be situated on the site this would also get reviewed by the township Health Department to make sure that there's no issues any well is going to get is going to get reviewed by the township Health Department not just these and your discussion before on the driveways is there a um impervious coverage percentage on driveways is different for stone versus pavement it depends um most not in okay not in Hillsboro it's all considered impervious okay I believe you may be referring to how it's treated via storm water correct correct okay okay that was the two questions thank you [Music] go Maria Janus 720 East FR Avenue Manville New Jersey okay um you mentioned that there is uh the the the Roy Brook tributary is uh along this property it it nearly bcts the properties if you consider them one but yes the royb tributary and and then you mention a stream is it the same the same body of water I may have used the term stream or brook or tributaries interchangeably throughout my testimony okay so it's just that one body of water correct okay um does this does this uh um application require a uh letter of interpretation we have one and it's been submitted as part of the application package we're also expecting a permit for the filling of a small isolated Wetland any day whenever they I'm sorry you for what the there's a small isolated Wetland on the property that is that is going to be filled as part of this development and we're we expect to receive that permit soon if I could make the D act sooner um I'd have more jobs I imagine but uh we're expecting it soon we've submitted final documents to them uh last week or earlier this week so what you just mentioned there's only one wet land so when when this property is uh divided into three separate Lots uh will there be Wetlands on any of these yes the the area along that isn't necessarily water itself along the rice Brook tributary has also been identified by the environmental consultant hired by the applicant and the flagging that we're showing uh there we go so this flagging it's the W the wa series is along the west side of the stream and it it identifies the and so does the LOI identifies the area as being Wetland with a 50ft transition area that we are not encroaching on or disturbing so there will be Wetland there and we're not we're not disturbing any of the remaining Wetland other than the one that we've submitted for a permit for okay um you mentioned you mentioned the FEMA Hazard area uh why did you mention the FEMA Hazard area the uh fem or the Federal Emergency Management agency has identified that there is a 100-year flood plane on this property and we've we've in just being upfront with all the information as we always are we've identified what the limit of that flood Hazard area is on the plan so FEMA has identified that there's a flood Hazard area on the site however uh that flood hasard area does not extend into portions of the site on which we're proposing development and we don't expect there's there's no trigger for a permit um from that as we're not disturbing it we're not proposing development within that flood Hazard area okay thank you um is there there's an existing house on the property now there's the remains of an existing house on the property now uh the superstructure has been demolished but the foundation and basement remains how was that how was that house uh accessed referring to A2 the existing dwelling had access directly on to Valley Road and rather than proliferating accesses on to Valley Road were consolidating by uh removing that asphalt driveway and that dwelling will access the private roadway before accessing out onto Valley Road okay [Music] oh you mentioned um you were asked about um basements and you said you have to first dig and see what's going to be found underground what what do you mean by that what what are possible things that you might find the typically the concern with basements is a high groundwater table that would require some pumps and additional maintenance and and nuisance conditions being created on the site uh however the existing property there that existing dwelling does have a basement and I'm not aware of I don't believe the owner is aware of any issues with that basement we're not expecting to find issues with the other two dwellings that we would build however I've never been able to look through the ground so when um when we do the soil investigation uh we will gain new knowledge and information Beyond what's been recorded in available soil mapping data uh we believe that that information will allow us to finalize the storm water management design and we'll support the idea that the basement will will be fine on the other two dwellings okay so if there's is underground water uh as long as you don't have a basement it's okay as far as the uh building the house on that on that type of land yes uh I believe we're approaching a conversation about how far down do you have to go until you find groundwater um and there there can be aquafers anywhere if you dig a well deep enough often times you'll find some water the question is is it viable to dig a well deep enough to find the water um given the proximity to the stream I would imagine that we wouldn't have to dig excessively deep Wells except deeper wells also provide benefits um that they don't get contaminated with surface water um issues but I don't see it as posing an issue for the construction of these dwellings okay that would also be uh part of the submission to the local building department when they review the foundation design and and whatnot at that stage okay uh are all three lots uh [Music] undersized no wait a minute yeah you require you require a variance for each lot because they're not the the required size there is a lot area variance for lot 2502 and 2503 which are the two lots to the South or the left the lot 2411 is compliant at 2.11 Acres where one is required normally and two is required for the well uh however there is a lot with at setback variance for that lot 24101 at 107.2 feet whereas 150 ft is required however as I pointed out earlier that variance stems from this area here just being slightly narrower at 107 uh. 28 ft and there's really nothing we can do in the geometry of this to change that feature to change that fact [Music] all right uh this is this is considered a ma major development um I'm not familiar with what what is the difference what would be the the um requirements if you were uh just building privately versus being part of a major development the major development definition is really more of a stormwater management definition uh precipitates out of the stormw management requirements wherein a major development in the state of New Jersey under the D's regulations and similarly under the township sub ordinance is a development that exceeds an acre of disturbance in total or more than a quarter of an acre or 10,890 sare ft of new impervious surface after 2001 or the creation of 10,000 or a quarter acre of Motor Vehicle Surface after 2021 um and and as a result this the total lot disturbance associated with this application is just over where am I get to [Music] that give me a minute the limit of disturbance is 2.78 Acres which exceeds the one acre allowable quote unquote not allowable but it triggers the requirements for a major development there is no minor development you're either a major or you're not a major um there is no catchall for if you're not a major um that is to say if you were not a major if you didn't uh disturb more than an acre or a quarter acre of new impervious um you would be left with whatever ordinances the township or other governing body May apply to the development but it's really a moot point to discuss that issue because we are a major development and we're complying with the requirements for major development under the states and the Township's rule for same [Music] and regarding the uh Wells right now comments were made about how expensive it would be to tie into the um to New Jersey American Water um so if someone were to buy this house buy a house and they have a well and then there was an issue with that well they would be requireed fired to what sounds like very prohibitive uh cost to have to tie into the U water to a water main is that the case it would be very this is this is very expensive right now if someone were to buy that buy a house and have an issue with the well they would have to pay that huge cost to tie into a water system I'm not sure that that's accurate I believe that the cost we were discussing is part of providing water service to all of the homes is the extension of a water main and as part of our conversation this evening uh we agreed that we would approach New Jersey American water with the idea that we would connect services to each of these homes and report back to the board and the engineer um with what those fees or costs may be even though we believe that there's no reason these Wells can't be built there we don't have any suspicion that these Wells are going to fail or that there's an existing well there now that that works just fine um however as a as a belt and suspenders approach we are going to provide additional information regarding Water Service availability for those other those other homes through the conventional water service from the main out on Valley Road okay thank you no I was I was hearing all of that but comment had been made that if there were an issue with the well sure so you know you never know [Music] sorry there was another question I think I had all right all right then thank you you're welcome thank you okay we've exhausted the public okay so give up motion to close public what do we have to let the public come back up if the applicant's finished with testimony there's an interesting question here we've got multiple variances being asked for and I'm unaware that the gentleman who has just testified has himself a planning degree or a licensed planners is a licensed planner therefore he cannot provide testimony Mr qu or Miss bu can correct me as to variance requests because then needs a planner's testimony to support a variance request you're looking at me like I'm you know it's one of those Knights I I don't disagree with you thank you so I'm assuming Miss Edwards plans on calling a planner at some point because if she's not she's going to have problems getting this application approved because we have no testimony that supports the multiple variances being sought anyway you have to move the mic closer to you we'll do the base moves man that's heavy uh yes we will call a planner we do not have a planner we do not have that to answer your question in as few words as possible yes we will call a planner we do not have a planner with us tonight however do you intend to call any other Witnesses on the planner uh we do not if if the board would like to hear from the applicant directly um we can certainly call you know we can swear the applicant but um other than Mr Ferell and possibly the applicant we have no other uh Witnesses um tonight we will return with a planner tonight we have reached the proverbial witching hour at 10 o'clock and the board turns into again tree CHR Christmas trees at this time of the year um and Michael's overtime kicks in so the answer to Mr to to the backend answer to the Chairman's question is no we do not because we have more witnesses which then brings us to the issue the time of decision is January 31st with an Extinction miss ball because you seem to be the purveyor of the calendar tonight now this is obviously tentative because the board has not formally approved the 2025 calendar we will simply you want Miss Edwards do you know when do you have any time restrictions on well how long would it take for you to retain a planner like in terms of some dates that we're about to talk to do would it take very long for you you to retain the planner we can probably retain a planner within 24 hours okay easier than Engineers apparently um we have one or two meetings in January regular meetings we have one okay and it's right after RoR well I that that answers the question so the answer is the earliest we can place this application on the agenda would be a February meeting February 6 or February 13th which would require then an Extinction on the [Music] application should be [Music] here are you still in are you still in state on the six okay um so there's no um just to be bold here there's no opportunity to have us back in January no okay the applicant is uh scheduled to leave the country on the 5th of February just clarification um do you intend to uh call call the owner to provide testimony um we would not unless the board had specific questions if I my practice is always to to insist that the that the applicant be present um for the hear if it's the board's perog if the board is not concerned about that then it's we can make it a non-issue board I don't believe has ever made the issue of the applicant's presence as necessary for an application to go forward the issue is whether or not the board wants to hear any testimony from the applicant and if the individual ual leaving the country around the time of the hearing and the board wants to hear testimony and God I hate to say this uh this may be the moment I mean I don't think you know no question nothing at this point I think the the real question would be if there's anything that gets brought up at the future meeting and need consultation that you may want to have the applicant on speed dial in the we hours you know can we reach you yeah okay so that I I think that's the only time you're going to need the applicant is what's that communication system is I you never know I've I've been in situations like this before when is your client coming back you know when's he leaving when is he coming back he leaves the 5th of February when are you back March 9th March 9th so then the only other suggestion to eliminate the issue is move March 13th then that would that would resolve the issue it doesn't it prolongs it but it resolves the issue I would say how I think we would if if the applicant um is confident that we'll be able to communicate then I and the board is okay with him um being available by phone on February 6th we would like that date okay zo every six which would require an Extinction would it not Mr Co do you say the number yes to yeah right now it's January 31st yes we asked for an Extinction to March 31st the board would granted you'll sign your away in a minute um therefore Mr chairman uh the request is to continue this application without further notice to February determined 13th February 6 February 6 2025 the board will have to confirm this at the reorg at the reorg meeting uh February 6 2025 at 7M or soon thereafter as the matter may be heard with out further notice and Extinction of time for the termination of the application through March 31st 2025 unless we want to hold it like this that is the new application I gather that's private island I make that motion second okay roll call please Mr Wagner yes Mr rtz Smith yes Mr Vitali yes Mr de yes him in the P yesy yes PE affirmative CH s yes M Edwards if you think you're going to need the engineer he might want to be available it's up to I'll leave that up to you but uh the requirement here in terms of planner reports terms of any professional reports is they are due here at least two weeks in advance 10 days two weeks which one of we 10 days 10 days at least 10 two weeks resolution yes roughly let's say let's say for the sake of the discussion two weeks weeks I believe before the end of January so that the board can have it it can go up and Civic Clerk Mr Co and Mr to the extent Mr Mayu will have attempts to review it and produce their reports they don't have the same time requirements though um is so is it the board's requirement that a the that a plan planner submit a plan report right okay very good the the board will the board decided several years ago it no longer would sit here and hear a planner testify off the cuff without anybody knowing what he or she was going to test since we have been in the midst of this this is an off night tonight for the board this is the first night and I cannot remember that we did not have a warehouse application on the agenda you're you're welcome yeah and the last one for the year because next week we're back on Warehouse again and the following meeting um so yes so we require the planner report be submitted in advance including and by the way any other expert reports if you decide down after looking at it that you need a hydrologist or someone else of that matter anybody who plan on having testify in an expert capacity must have a report in at least two weeks in advance of the hearing very to Mr CO's office so it can go up on the and some of your fan club will be looking for it no who we here tonight [Music] um they're gone that's the fan that's the fan we resolution good to have fans to extend yeah we just voted on it no no well well first just I'm just going to remind everybody that we do have a meeting next week as Mr Bernstein alluded to so so it by the way well while I'm playing Beetle Juice Beetle Juice you all should have received another piece of the murder mystery that goes with the application which is another report and set of plans from Mr Ford which I anticipate will drag this hearing on even longer so if you have not seen it please check with Civic Clerk or contact the Bora but I believe and also please bring I know we're sort of still on please bring the latest submissions you received from Mr gross because that is going to be issue number one next Thursday night which whether he can have him testify right okay so with that we got a meeting next Thursday night at 7 pm I will entertain a motion of adjournment so move second second all right all in favor I word turn good night everyone see you next week