Yeah. I don't know. I see him do it, so I'm doing it. You know, David David. See, I learned I I learned the wingspan. See,
it's all good. Okay. No, no, we're on. I already took care of it. Okay. Okay. Good evening, everyone. Welcome to the Hillsboro Township Planning Board meeting of October 9th, 2025. Please
join me in salute to the flag. I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Please be advised. This meeting has been
duly advertised according to section five of the open public meetings act chapter 231 public law 1975 otherwise known as sunshine law. knows of the 2025 annual meeting schedule has been provided to the officially designated newspapers. Township clerk posted on the
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's civic clerk website at least 10 days prior to this evening's meeting. Complete application files are available in the planning and
zoning department for inspection in accordance with the public meeting notice. If that may I have roll call of board members and also board oh my goodness board and township professionals please Mr. Wagner, Mr. Ratawitz, Mr. Deb and
Mr. Smith are absent. Mr. Flag here. Mr. Vitali here. Miss Smith here. Committee Nepani present. Mr. Gelli here. Vice Chair Pee present. Chair Sarra here. Present. Bernstein present. Mr. Mayhew
here. and myself and the videographer are here. Okay, welcome everybody. So, we do not have any meeting minutes for consideration. However, we do have a resolution for consideration. See Homestead Road LLC file number 21-PB-25-MS
backsp. Is there anyone that wants to present? Eligible members are uh Mr. Pson, yourself, Committeeman Leani, board secretary Smith, and Mayor Chikarelli.
Okay. Thank you. May I have a resolution to approve resolution? May I have a motion to approve the resolution? So moved. Second. Okay. Any discussion from NES? Hearing none. Roll call, please. Miss Smith,
yes. Committee Money. Yes. Mayor Chelli, yes. Vice Chair Pen, yes. Sher Sarra, yes. Okay, we don't have any planning board business nor any considerations of ordinances. I will now open up to business from the
floor for matters that are not on this evening's agenda. If anyone would like to come up, please come up to the microphone. State your name and address for the record. I don't know. David Brookke winding away. I feel very lonely that I haven't been coming to
these meetings and and I wanted to say hi, so I figured I'd just come by and thank you all for doing the good work you do. I have a question that relates to Harvard Way and since the attorney who's representing them is here, it seems appropriate to ask. I
know I can't ask next week because it's on the agenda. It's basically this. Do you know if the public will have an opportunity? It's the remand. I guess I should say that. Will the public have any opportunity to comment on the discussions that are going to be taking
place? First of all, and I'm sort of jumping the gun, the hearing will not be next week. Um, for two reasons, and I'll mention this again later. One, council for the board, other than myself, father
actually just passed away, so she will not be available. And in the interim, we have gotten notice late this afternoon, correct me if I'm wrong, from Judge Menon that he wants to hear oral argument on the intervenor's appeal to
intervene in the board hearing on next Friday afternoon. So for those reasons, it will not be on for the 16th and not sure when it will be. We'll depend on probably now what Judge Menon does.
As to the answer to that question, we may get some direction or not from the court. Thank you. Well, sorry the but the question still stands I think. When it does eventually come, will the public be able to unlike At the moment,
the public, I don't believe, is going to be allowed to comment except possibly on what came before the board through the presentation from Mr. Flynn. But again, that will depend on, I suspect,
what Judge Menon does depending on what he does with the intervention motion. Thank you. it will be an issue that will get raised. We have raised everything else as I think Mr. O'Gradnik will concur. Uh so why not add that one to the long
list. So so you'll have to come when it gets rescheduled and find out. And I may be jumping the gun by asking the order of business of how that proceeds, but presumably the discussion in the
remand indicated that the planning board would conduct deliberations. I don't know if that was the exact word, but something close to that. Do do you have a sense of how that plays out from the point of view of uh going
through the different points that he's the judge has? I would advise the board not to respond. It's ongoing litigation and the board will be advised accordingly at the appropriate time. This is something new for all of us. So
I think we're going to learn all together. Well, well, exactly that and it's new to me. So, I just figured I would ask if anybody had a sense of it. I I wasn't asked by Mr. O'Dro to come up here and ask that question. I just want to know that actually I don't think Mr. O'Grodnik wanted you to come up and ask that
question or had any interest in the answer. All right. I know he I'm well aware of what his position is. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Any other members from the public? Okay. See, now we will move to this
evening's application public hearing. Green Care Farms LLC file number 24-PB-09-MS. Time of decision of December 31st of this year. It's block 204, lot 45.01,
commonly known as 241 Woods Road. The applicant is seeking preliminary and final major subdivision approval sele variances and waiverss to subsidize 12.28 acres into five single family dwelling lots with associated uh stormwater improvements on the
property located in the residential agricultural zone. Uh the application was adjourned from the September 11th, 2025 meeting without further notice. And with that, I will turn it over to Mr. Arodnik. Thank you. Um, ladies and gentlemen of
the board, Mike Ogdan, Savos Law Firm on behalf of the applicant Green Care Farms LLC. Um, as indicated in the preamble, it's a major subdivision. Uh, we're intending to uh seek approval for the construction of five single family
homes. Um, this is block 204, lot 451. Uh, it's located at 241 Woods Road. Um, in short, there's uh a lot that is 12.2 acres. It's an irregularly shaped parcel
in the residential agricultural zone where single family dwellings are permitted principal uses. Um, this application proposes uh five dwellings with associated driveways, drainage, three large detention basins, utility improvements,
and landscaping. uh this area of the township uh is specifically this lot is it's vacant. It's wooded and it's uh an attract that's surrounded completely by other
single family homes. It's bounded by of course Woods Road to the east and then uh residential properties along Lanning Way, Fairfield Lane, and Petrick to the south, north, and west. This property was subject to approval on September
9th, 2021 for a dementia care facility uh under 19 PB21SV. That is no longer a feasible project. So, we're moving towards uh five residential lots. We intend these to be
custom homes uh in the 1.5 to probably $2.3 million range. Um concept plan provides for shared driveway uh for lots uh 45.07 and 45.08
um to be constructed in uh rural lane standards under the RAIS as opposed to a public roadway. Um we have on file DOI confirmation absence of wetlands dated August 10, 2021.
variances. I'm going to go through um the variances that are currently proposed and then just touch on uh a concept plan that was the result of communications with your professionals and collaboration with your professionals. But as it stands now, the
lot width setbacks for lots 45.07 and 45.08, 200 feet are required. We're at 87.4 and 82.59 ft. a lot area uh is 2.11 acres where three acres are required.
Uh and then the access drive variance for the shared driving driveway serving multiple principal uses. There's also a tree mitigation variance identified by Mr. quis's me uh memo from relief from
1881 163 and I found out that your economic hardship waiver is no longer applicable as eliminated by ordinance 2024-16 with respect to the relief um the applicant can eliminate the variances by constructing a public roadway looking at
the site plan to the north two lots which is lots 45.07 and 45.08 08 uh which would allow for the appropriate frontage and area. However, we've re reviewed comments and we've had discussions with the professionals and
Mr. Ford has prepared an exhibit tonight that he'll detail. That's a con labeled concept plan that was submitted uh that would still not have the the public street in order to eliminate the relief, but would have a driveway. Um that would
be a shared driveway but constructed under RIIS rural lane standard. So wider I think it goes 12 to 18 ft. He'll detail that. Um but it does uh I think the major change here is uh just single driveways out the
woods for the other uh for the other properties. So there wouldn't have that access drive variance under 18849E except for again those two lots. uh looking at the site plan to the north. I have Mr. Ford uh Michael Ford, our civil engineer and we have Tom Barren uh our
professional planner. We also have uh Raj Singh on behalf of the applicant available to answer any questions. And we would ask that Mr. Ford be sworn in qualified as an expert and present his existing proposed and concept plan.
Michael Ford Forg licensed professional engineer and planner in the state of New Jersey. Um been with Van Clee Engineering for nearly 35 years and I've appeared before this board numerous times.
Yes, we know. And no new grandchildren since my last visit in Jul June or July. Yeah. Okay. All right. So, uh perhaps I can we uh emailed these uh exhibits to the planning department
this afternoon. Um I'm going to refer to four. Uh first is a a plan entitled existing condition exhibit. Um that's dated March 14, 2025. That's what you see on the screen right now.
notes. Mark, this is uh A1. Yes. Date on it, Michael. March 14th, 2025. Thank you. And I have a hard copy I can give to
whoever. Okay, here we go. Just keep one. There you go. And perhaps I can enter. There's only four exhibits. I can enter them all and then as I refer to them, they will. The
second exhibit is uh plan entitled proposed condition exhibit. Again, also dated March 14th, 2025. It's a colorized exhibit of the proposed condition. Date on it.
March 14, 2025. A2. The third is again also entitled proposed condition exhibit. It is dated October 9th, 2025. A3 and then uh A4 would be a uh
preliminary plat. And I'll scroll to it. Dated October 11th, 2024. last revised March 21st, 2025 A4
and the So, uh, as Mr. Ogodnik indicated, this is a single family residential major subdivision to create five new building lots on 12.3 acres. We're in the RA zone where the minimum
lot size is two acres. Um, and I'm think it would be rare for this board to see a situation like this where we have such large lots that is two acres. Normally, that's the minimum lot size for a property that doesn't have access to
public sewer or water. However, in this case, we do have access to public sewer and water. And all five lots would be serviced by public sewer and water. The overall average lot size is 2.5 acres
and uh as was discussed earlier we have uh some relief associated with the application. However, uh as part of my presentation, I'll um describe to a board the board an option that would be
a completely compliant uh layout for the bulk standards that is eliminate the lot area, lot width variances as well as the shared access relief. However, after discussions with your staff, um I would
hope that you agree that the public road for just two single family lots is not uh a better planning alternative and the project as proposed with the relief would be a better planning alternative. And I'll go to that now.
So the next A2 is uh an exhibit illustrating the application as has been submitted. Um I'll refer to uh the left and right side of the plan which is the
uh left side is the west side. Right side of the plan is the east side. um fronting uh route or excuse me, fronting Woods Road uh just up opposite Petrick is three proposed lots which
I'll refer to the east side lots those three lots uh as we had initially submitted the application we actually thought that there would be a preference to limit the driveways on Woods Road. So, we propose the shared driveway access after
discussion with your professionals and understanding the relief associated with that and the review memorandum we've received from the board of engineer back in September, we've prepared uh an alternative plan that as Mr. Arodnik uh
indicated would be separating all three of those driveways as has been suggested by the board engineer. And while I'm in that area describing that, I'll flip the screen to A3 and you'll see the subsidive change.
Literally just splitting those three driveways. So each house would be serviced by an independent driveway. And that would eliminate one of the relief aspects that was part of the original application to share to have a share
driveway for those three properties. The second aspect is uh with regards to the west of the lots, the two lots at the top left portion of the uh application you'll see in the exhibit
and I'm back to A2 which is as submitted uh layout. You'll see and I'll flip to A3 now with the slight change over there. U the shared access driveway that's was part of the
original uh submitt would be widened to those rural lane residential uh site improvement standards and the access lane would be widened. While I'm describing those lots in that
westerly side, I'd like to flip to A4, which is uh an illustration of the completely complying plan with the new public road. And you'll see that the uh new public road or even if it were a
dedicated private road would still service just those two lots, those two houses, make the bulk standards uh relief go away for those two lots. That is the lot area and the lot frontage. So they would be completely
complying. Um but in essence you would still have the same resulting development with a higher burden of um improvements to uh maintain albeit by a dedicated township
road. And I know the town wouldn't um be looking preferably to especially a private or a public road for just two houses or even a private road that would be owned and maintained by a homeowners association. and we feel it's a better
planning alternative and I believe the report that we received two days ago from the board engineer also supports this is that rather than this public road uh option that would eliminate that relief is to simply take the original uh
proposal widen that driveway to service those two lots to meet RSIS standards and widen that easement. So that's the substance of the bulk standard relief. And as Mr. Ogdnik indicated, we
have a professional planner with us today that will um go even into more detail with regards to that relief. Uh but I think the board can see uh quite easily with the flipping back between the the three different exhibits that
the option to eliminate the relief really doesn't subsidively change the proposed five lot single family project but would have a much higher burden on whoever it is to own and maintain some
improvements. Okay, storm water management. I've talked about utilities, public sewer and water. There's public water in Woods Road. The sewer would be it brought in from Woods Road into the service all five lots.
With regards to storm water management, you'll see on the exhibit A3 that I have up now, which is our proposed um project now with the separate driveways for the three easterly lots and the one um shared driveway access
that would remain and still require relief for the two uh northwesterly lots. We're proposing three detention basins for five lots. These would bi be bio retention infiltration basins. So the detention
basin would service both or all three aspects of storm water management u as required by um state code the town code and other regulatory agencies that is quantity quality and recharge element. For
example, all three basins have the water quality element. And for the water quality storm, which is that first flush storm, the water quality um treatment would be done in all three basins. And there actually would be zero discharge
from the basins for those water quality storms. And that would um be uh accomplished by infiltrating through the filter media and the bio retention system to provide for that water quality treatment. Then quantity
and um quality are again addressed by the bio retention basin. Um these would have um outlet structures at each basin that would release the inflow into the basin at a controlled rate such
that the peak discharge from the basins not just uh or below existing conditions but as required would be be um below the peak rate of existing condition for the two-year storm, 10-year storm and the
100red-year storm by 50% 75%. % and 80%. And within our storm water management report, we illustrate again, we're dealing with the new storm water rules now. So, it's the new rainfall data.
It's both the present adjusted and the future storm water rainfalls. So, for example, the 100red-year storm, while it was um a 8.2 2 inch rainfall event within 24 hours that we were designing
for not too long ago. The new standards are um approximately 12 inches of rainfall for the future 100 year storm. These basins are designed to accomplish those reductions. Um, and in virtually
every aspect, they don't just meet those reductions, but um, meet them by a comfortable conservative margin. This has been already uh reviewed and established that compliance with the
stormwater rules by virtue of our um approval letter that we received from the DNR Canal Commission. And we also have a rep approval letter from the uh Somerset Planning Board. we just uh would have to address their
conditions for filing the major subdivision plat at the county clerk's office. And we also have uh secured the Somerset Union Soil Conservation District approval regarding trees and tree mitigation
as Mr. indicated and and this is reflected in the board engineers review um dated October 7th. Uh we're now aware that the code has changed that the economic hardship waiver went away. The
original application that was submitted actually about a year ago for this project and it it you know obviously took some time to get where we're at now. Um the code has changed since the original submitt uh where we did request
the economic hardship waiver. We've reviewed uh the new standards uh with both the township staff and the applicant and we would comply with all of the planting standards. So that is
the tree mitigation plantings that will be required as part of this application in accordance with the current new ordinance will be complied with. The one aspect of the ordinance that remains and it was part of our initial application for relief and it still remains in the
current new standard um is that for um in addition to the tree mitigation there's a requirement that for residential projects you not disturb more than 20% of your total wooded area in this case and you saw by virtue of
our um A1 exhibit that this site is substantially wooded, majority wooded. Um, so to comply with that 20% reduction would be a hardship, especially when you consider other factors that are also in
the regs and and kind of conflict with that disturbance of wood requirement. And I'll point to first the storm water management aspects. You'll see that the three basins that are highlighted on A3
uh in uh lighter green uh encompass substantial areas. They have to be placed at low ends. So they gather the storm water, you know, by gravity to flow to it and they also happen to be in areas that are there are some existing woods. So the the woods would have to be
disturbed in order to build the detention basins. The other aspect is is when you look at the zoning the building envelope is set by the pro property lines and the setback requirements to the property lines. So we have some rest
that obvious restriction in order to comply where the houses are located and um that also happens to be in wooded areas. So, we're um right now, as illustrated on our tree mitigation plan, um disturbing uh approximately 52 point
I'm sorry, 52% of the wooded area. What I'd like to highlight though is right now, and there's been some, and I'll get to in a minute, the re most recent review memorandums are going to require some revisions to the plans. So obviously there may be some changes
subtly to the areas of disturbance and therefore the mitigation and the tree disturbance to comply with what we've been asked to do. But the initial application uh carried with it a
disturbance of um removal of 329 trees. Our preliminary calculations based on the current tree mitigation uh ordinance would uh include a tree planting in excess of 400 trees for this project. So
you can see by virtue of the math and the the uh tree mitigation requirements the resulting uh plantings will be in excess of what the individual tree uh removals are. and we will endeavor to
plant all the trees on site and those areas that um might not be slated for development might be open now uh we would endeavor to fill in those gaps to create greater wooded areas. So while we um exceed the limitation for the
percentage of tree mitigation um we're also as a result of the mitigation plantings going to be bringing back some of those wooded areas. Um perhaps now I can go to the review memorandums.
We are in receipt of a July 22nd, 2025 review memorandum from the township's uh fire marshal Chris Winer. There's two bullet point items and we would agree to any condition of approval this board may
grant to comply with those requirements to uh Mr. Werger's satisfaction, and I'll get to it in a minute. The board engineers um October 7th memorandum a couple days ago included also a requirement that we
comply with Mr. Wineer's requirements and and in both places, we would absolutely agree to do that. As part of this application process, we made a visit to the environmental commission. There's a September 10th, 2025
uh memorandum to the board from the environmental commission. They're primarily bullet points that state facts. Uh and to the extent that the environmental comm commission suggests some changes or items that we
uh should address, we would agree to do them uh to the satisfaction of your board engineer. So that where they coincide with or are collaborative with the board engineers comments, which
we'll get to in a minute, we would agree to do do that as well. For example, a deed restriction over the proposed storm water management basins. I believe that's consistent with the what the board engineers already asked for. um that we uh um don't clear the site or do
the m you know removal of trees um to respect um potential bat habitat. Um those types of items we would agree to do two more memorandums I'll speak to a September 8th 2025 review memorandum
by Mr. Coist the uh planning director and there are under planning zoning considerations and comments uh 15 comments. Um I'm hoping that we're I've been asked to provide some
testimony and explanation about that. I've done that as part of my presentation so far. Would defer to Mr. course if there's something that uh remains to be addressed, but we would agree with regards to any item within those 15 comments where there's plan
changes to be made to do them to Mr. Kois's satisfaction. Then lastly, an October 7th, 2025 memorandum by Penoni Associates, uh the township and board engineer, Mr.
Mayu. Uh there's seven pages. Again, there's uh quite a bit of detail and elements of um changes or clarifications on plans and we would agree to do uh
every item in that review memorandum to um the board engineer satisfaction. We have no objection to any of those comments. And perhaps maybe I can speak to just a few if there's items where I missed with
testimony. For example, I've already highlighted that the original application included relief for the shared access driveway for the three southeasterly lots as suggested by um the board engineer. We would eliminate
that by separating those driveways. with regards to um the widening of the share driveway to lots proposed lots 457 and 458 the northwesterly lots we've agreed that and
I've already discussed it that we would uh widen that and comply with the engineer suggestion as we've uh just to re remind the board at part of our initial presentation
uh there was a freshwater wetland presence absence and that is a determination of absence of wetlands issued for the property. So there are no wetlands or wetland buffers on the property and that's been uh verified by NJD.
Um with regards to the additional comments uh in the October 7th review memorandum as a uh since the the initial September review memorandum there's additional
details and um expanded storm water management analysis uh that um the board's engineers requested and we'll uh comply with all of those requirements that uh is being said in you know in
addition to the what I've already described where the stormwater management aspects of the project have already been determined to be in compliance with the state regs uh through the DNR canal commission but the to the extent that the supplemental
analysis include some uh additional stormwater uh uh mitigation uh we would make that part of the plans and project uh to Mr. May who's satisfaction
and these I think are also um I'll say good neighbor uh suggestions where we can we're we're already going above and beyond the regs by providing reductions in the peak flow
uh substantially below and and not just close to what the the the regulations require but to the extent that there can be additional mitigation measures made. Uh spreading out the discharge from a basin is one of the items that suggested and I'm just highlighting these for the
board's um information. Uh we have no objection to doing those. Perhaps I can stop now. And we've made application to the HTMU for the sewer extension. We're in receipt of a will
serve letter from January of this year and have received recent comments from the um sewage authority which we'll address and that's an independent agency and we understand that we would need HMUA approval, Somerset Ron Valley sewage
authority approval for the public sewer for the five homes as well as NJD approval for the sanitary sewer extension. believe that's it. Mr. Mayhew. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Based on Mr. Ford's testimony that his office would agree as a condition of approval to address our October 7th comments. I I have no additional comments or questions. Okay. All the pressure is going to be on you.
Well, we've spoken Mr. for and I have several times prior to the meeting and discussed the um some of the more pertinent comments and uh based on his testimony tonight and earlier comments
uh I believe our office I believe his office will be able to submit uh plans that will address our comments. Okay, perfect. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Ford. Just verification the comments that I provided you had
said you you agree with the ones that were made or were there any that you won't be able to comply with? No. Okay, that's all I have, Mr. Chairman. Okay, thank you. Thank you, board members.
Mr. Ford, um congratulations again. Uh three questions and regarding sorry I get closer mostly the storm water because I haven't seen any real plans here. Um is there can you explain why there for the
one lot I guess lot 451 there's no storm water detention base or anything for that lot where the other two lots have them and obviously the ones to the north. Are we draining 451 down to the other bio detention basins?
Correct. Is that like through piping or Yes, there's lawn inlets and it's the way the grade of the site is, that's where the flow would go to. Okay. Secondly, the um the detention
basins of what's the depth of those the depth of the bas? You mean like are they four feet, five feet, 10 feet? Yeah. No, they're like on the order of four or five feet. They're not none of the embankments um are to an extent where they would
warrant a permit from D for a dam for example. They're not they're not that high. So there mable slopes or as far as from a maintenance standpoint or the the basins uh in the uh southeasterly corner are just gentle
like 3 to one slope. So they would be maintained that way in order to accomplish the volume we needed to restrict the outflow from the two lots on the north westerly corner the the top lots that
basin does have a retaining wall in it and so the outside of the basin drains has a gentle slope the inside is got a wall and is that are they fenced? Yes. Okay. And my la and my last question is
um are they an engineered basin meaning that they've been for perk that they're utilizing a sand base or some sort of filter that uh will allow because obviously there's no outlet right they just come in the water and and soak or
where if they overflow is there an outlet? Yeah, they they all have outlets um and they all have, you know, an outlet structure that controls the outflow. Uh but they are the the we've done soil testing at all three locations
and these are um the sand bottoms you refer to are uh really like a plain infiltration basin. These are bio retention, so they'll have vegetation in the bottom, so they'll look more natural. In fact, one of the comments in Mr. May whose review memorandum speaks
to the type of vegetation they'd like us to put in those basins. Right. So there um from a maintenance standpoint and the HOA and and doing the maintenance, is it a a lowmaintenance situation where it's just they have to
keep the outfalls clean? Mr. Mayhew, I mean, what what kind of maintenance are being required? because I'm just worried about um them not being in uh good shape and then they start to fail is my concern. Yeah. Yeah. that the stormwater regs in
order to comply mandate these types of structures um the uh type of basins that we're proposing I believe are um I'll say more user friendly in the sense of maintenance because they're the vegetation in the bottom of the basins
would look attractive but also not require a lot of maintenance. There is an owner and operation maintenance manual that we prepared and submitted as part of the original application and some of the comments we've received is to add more data to
that and there will be a requirement that that gets recorded. So any person that purchases a home in here will know the of these responsibilities and uh part and parcel that the town actually that the township has a requirement that there's an annual
reporting of an inspection. Correct. But but all that said, you know, we're all human. So it's it's going to be an ongoing challenge to have storm water man mitigation but have the ownership and maintenance responsibilities adhere to.
So the the basins the I'll call it the bottom of the basement all be planted. Right. So it won't be all open grass. It's going to be the the infiltration system with with plants and vegetation to absorb the m the water and filtrate. Correct. So there's no mowing and that kind of thing. Okay. That was kind of where I was trying to
get to for his maintenance standpoint. Um, and lastly, I didn't notice is there any kind of these long driveways any kind of lighting that's included for for safety and any of these driveways, especially the long common one like a traffic light
or one pole light at inter something. Um, we haven't proposed any lighting like as if it were a site plan. Okay, that's all you uh on um if I may uh
on item six of the planning report which I shut down. Um, is there any way we can either deed do some deed restriction on the trees that are remaining? I think it relates to that
these are going to be sold as individual lots to be developed. So, this is either for Mr. Ford or for anybody on the days. Uh, and the reason I say this is we've had recent experience where one of these types of developments is
started and they just clear as much as they want and and you know, come back to say, "Oh, I'm sorry. We went 20 feet too far. We cleared to the line." So, a deed restriction was mentioned on on the storm water detention areas, but
what about all this all these trees that are in between them? Uh, can we do something to make sure that they don't get clearcut by an owner? And I know we have ordinances, but that doesn't stop people from doing um just a I don't know if we can require that or not. Anything
outside of the yellow marked um uh the lines of disturbance should never be touched. Right. That's like to see that if that's I I I don't know if that's been hurt heard of before, if that's even legal. I'm just or wondering
if our construction department has to be diligent when the time comes. So I kind of throw that out to everybody. I mean, typically we wouldn't want a deed restriction. I mean if there were wetlands, if there were other regulated uh wet, you know, other sensitive
environmentally sensitive areas, um that may be appropriate, but this is forest. Um those deed restrictions are quite stringent. Um and I don't think really appropriate for a single family home. Uh but certainly, you know,
there's two mechanisms of enforcement. Of course, you mentioned the ordinances. Um, and I'm cleaning up that mess on that project that you're talking about. I did not handle that uh application, but I'm I'm aware of that. Um, but you also have the conditions in the
resolution that can spell out uh, you know, the areas that shouldn't be disturbed or limited disturbance uh, without having the necessity for a deed restriction. We would ask just that it be incorporated and detailed in the resolution. Okay.
Um, and the this one may or may not be appropriate at this time, but the could because I I think this is actually probably for the the planner and not for you, uh, Mr. Ford.
But, um, item 11 discusses the affordable housing development fee. So, I it's in was in David's report, but I think it's it's not for it's not for Mr. Ford. So, I think we'll wait till the uh planner gets approved.
All right. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Any other board members? All right. May I have a mo Oh, go ahead. I just have a one quick question. Uh in the Penoni letter, um number five that
talks about the rural street parking. Um just I just am curious how are you going to address not having any parking on that rural lane? Sure. Yeah. Okay. The the um expectation would be that uh these would be four
bedroomedroom homes or larger. The residential site improvements uh standards require uh for a five bedroomedroom house for example, three parking spaces, but a twocar garage with the driveway behind it, they give you credit for three and a half spaces. So, just by default of
having the two-car garage with the um driveway uh complies with the RSIS standards for parking, but but to your point like the idea of having visitors um I think that uh that's a balancing
act, right? We don't want to create a big parking area that never gets used or gets used once in a while. I think from a practical standpoint, if there's a, you know, I I think an acknowledgement, if there's a family event where they have multiple people there, they would
be parking along the driveway, you know, or right at the house on the lawn, right? We wouldn't have a special parking area for that. And they also would have to comply with the point you're making and I think the point that's made in this review is that
there's no parking allowed on Woods Road. So just to clarify, does that mean you would put a sign or something? I'm just I'm just uh I'm not sure that there's uh not signs already along Woods Road or or uh
Yeah, there's not. Um, I guess we could discuss that with Mr. May who's office if there's a need for us to There's other residents there already that would have to adhere to the same restriction. Would that actually be spelled out in
the deed perhaps? In the deed just regard Well, we don't have authority over a public right away. Uh, so the township committee would have to do a study and impose signage. We I'm sure we wouldn't have a problem with
donating the cost of a no parking sign along those stretches, but to the extent that uh you know, it's an enforcement issue. It's a different chapter of your ordinance. It's not in the land use and development ordinance and any regulations on a public rightway must be
governed by your police department. Uh zoning doesn't have authority over the public rightway enforcement. Uh so yeah, I would encourage you to review um that portion of your ordinance and and if appropriate suggest additional signage
that we would compensate the town for. Thank you. Uh I have one other kind of random question that I saw in u when I was going through the documents. So, in 2021, it says that the DNR canal approved a um 10,000 square foot 15 bed
assisted living facility. I'm just curious and I'm just want to know what was the change in thought process between you know not going far with that. Just economically um construction costs tripled.
So, it became uh something that was not feasible. There was also dem market demand issues with that particular use uh that make that particular use no longer feasible. Thank you. I'm just going to go back. So now I'm just getting a little confused as to
what is the rural lane. Is it the shared? Yes. Okay. So that's going to be private, right? Correct. Okay. That's why I was asking about de because it's not going to be a public road. I mean, it's a shared roadway or whatever between the two residents. I
don't know if it's a something that just gets embedded in the HOA so that everyone knows, you know, they're not supposed to be parking that that's I mean, it's private property. I mean, if there's a graduation party, I'm hope hopefully the neighbors wouldn't care that the other neighbor would park along that lane, but it's a it's a significant
length, so you can probably adequately park a substantial amount, especially with the widening from 12 to 18 feet, right? Okay, Mr. Chairman, if I could point
uh I think Mr. Ford's done a an adequate job explaining it, but I wanted the board to understand that our office hasn't taken opinion one way or the other on the three eastern lots. Mr. Ford, if you could switch the exhibit. You know, the original application
had those three lots sharing one drive. There you go. There it is. And um and of course that creates a variance for the multi-uses on one drive. So we had suggested to his office to then go to
the exhibit. Uh Mike, if you can move it over where two of those lots, the driveways then directly access woods. But that's in my mind not an engineering issue. So, I think that's something the board needs to think about and weigh in
um whether it's appropriate to have the separate driveways or try to combine them. I I guess I would add that certainly we've taken a quick look, but Mr. Ford, you should double check when we at the end make sure there's adequate sight
distance on that lot at the corner. Yep. Yes. Um it it to in our office opinion it would more fit in with the other single family homes along Woods Lane they each have their individual drafts but again that's
more of a board decision their preference. All right. So just to clarify so with regards if these are going to be individual driveways or shared that's something that's going to be left up to the board. Yeah, I mean the applicants
actually we agree with Mr. Mayhew that this is a better design. I mean I think if you're building a $2 million house, you want your own driveway. Okay. So the recommendation is individual. We for the three we take no exception to to
that. Yeah. Okay. And Mr. Chairman, if I could weigh in as well. Um, you know, from a say a planning and zoning standpoint or at least what we experience on a daily basis, um, what I
would say is certain circumstances, yeah, shared driveway is just going to have to be something that makes a lot of sense. But when there's an opportunity to not have to do it, then you're eliminating the future issues of the property owners
having having civil matters uh with each other, which unfortunately we we do experience. Uh so when it is possible to to do it and especially when it's a road that um is classified that you can still
do curb cuts and as long as it's being done in a safe in a safe way. uh this was an option that we were that we were um satisfied with seeing as opposed to the other one. But again, up to the board.
Thank you. That driveway that comes out onto Woods Road between the two S turns, obviously, you have two blind corners, right? Uh, and you've kind of got the driveway, I guess, but skewed
more towards the the one side. Um, in your opinion, from a safety standpoint and sight triangle coming out of that, would it make sense to move that more towards the middle so that you can have a better idea what's coming around the turn? Um, because it it looks like it's
a big area, but it's not a very long area there. It's probably just a few hundred feet. That's a great point, uh, Mr. Stupani. Um, our office did a really quick look at based on the speed limit and the required stopping site distance. Um, the
key to note here is the right away is extensive at that curve. So, as long as the right away is maintained, it creates an opportunity for a larger view. Um, but I I would certainly ask Mr. Ford
on the final plans to show the stopping site distances required on the plan and and both our offices will make sure that they're adequate. Okay. Agreed. No other board comments. Can we have a motion open to public, please?
So moved. Second. All in favor? I I Okay. Okay. If there's anyone from the public that would like to uh cross-examine Mr. Ford on his testimony, please feel free to come up to the mic, state your name and address for the record.
Okay. So, we have no takers. It's all right. I'm I'm wincing because I got a bad shoulder. Something's something's messed up here. I got to fix my shoulder. Okay. Uh, so our final witness is Tom Barrens.
He's our professional planner from Burgess Associates. Yeah. Yeah, of course. We're going to use your computer. Okay. Sure. Um, good evening board members. Uh my name is Tom Barrens, last name spelled BH rens. I'm a licensed uh
professional planner in the state of New Jersey as well as a member of the American Institute of Certified Planners. I'm with the firm uh Burgess Associates located at 25 Westwood Avenue, Westwood, New Jersey. I've had the pleasure of being qualified previously by the Hillsboro uh zoning board of adjustment, not by the planning
board. Uh I've been qualified by at least 30 other boards throughout the state including closest to here would be Raren, Somerville, Town of Clinton and again many others and uh our firm also represents a number of municipalities where I represent those towns as planner
uh including zoning boards and planning boards. Okay, any objections? Hearing none, we accept. Please continue. Appreciate it. Um just to give an overview of what our office has submitted to date for this
application. We've previously submitted a community impact statement dated April 16th, 20125. Um that document was prepared in accordance with section um 188-32E of the township code. Um it includes an
analysis of the population, school, and fiscal impacts from the proposed subdivision. More recently, we've submitted a planning report dated August 28th, 2025, um, which includes a number of sections, including, uh, an overview of the site description, project
summary, zoning analysis, overview of the applicable statutory criteria, basis for granting the requested variance relief, and um, planning conclusions. And I'll use that report as the basis for my testimony. With respect to the property description, I I believe the board is
well acquainted, but I'll just tick off a few um notable points. One I'll note is that the lot is oversized with an area of 12.28 acres where the RA zone requires a minimum lot area of 2 acres. So, it's more than six times the minimum
lot area requirement. The lot I would offer is is highly irregularly shaped um where it has sort of five separate prongs. Um, I was hard to come up with an analogy of what it might look like, a letter or some other shape. It's like a drag. I don't know what it is, but it's
an irregular shape with at least five different appendages and three distinct frontages on Woods Road. Um, it's impacted by one small area of steep slopes on the eastern area of the property where Woods Road curves. The lots developed with two existing buildings near the center of the lot,
including a one-story dwelling and deteriorated uh one-story frame structure. The remainder of the lot, as you've heard, is generally undeveloped and wooded. And there is also uh an area in the southern portion of lot that has been cleared. Developments surround this site, mostly single family homes. There
is some vacant land to the west and a qualified farmland uh to the south. Um you've heard about the application. I'll just note some other things that I think uh might be uh beneficial for the board's information. Um, one I'll note
that of there are five lots proposed obviously which range uh in area from 2.008 acres to 3.05 acres. Again the overall uh lot size is 12.27 acres which again is six times greater than the the
minimum lot area. Um as you've heard lots four 45.01 45.05 and 45.06 will have separate driveway access on Woods Road. Um and lots 45.07 7 and 45.08 will share an 18 foot wide driveway with
an access easement um which also extends to Woods Road. We we're providing storm water management. Each lot will be served by public uh sewer and water. And then finally, as you've heard, we'll be installing uh trees as depicted on the plans. These include street trees,
screening for adjacent properties, and along four of the five proposed driveways. And as Mr. before testified to, we will comply with the entirety of the mitigation obligation on site. So, in addition to what's shown, there'll be more trees as determined to be necessary and appropriate.
With respect to zoning, again, we're in the RA residential agricultural zone, which permits detached single family uses, which is what's intended for each of the five lots proposed. We're requesting four C variances as a result of the proposed subdivision. Um, this
includes the shared driveway access for lots 45.07 and 45.08 where separate access is technically uh prohibited in accordance with section 188-49E which indicates that only one principal use may be served per access drive.
Second variance is for the non-conforming lot area of lot 45.08 08 which has a an area of 2.114 acres where a flag lot is technically required to have a minimum lot area of 3 acres. Um third variance is for lot
45.08 which has a non-conforming lot width of 82.5 ft. Um where the zone requires a minimum lot width of 200 feet. I was wasn't clear to me that lot 45.07 with a lot width of 87.4t four feet
requires a variance because it's more than three acres in size and at that point only 25 feet's required. So, we can get to that, but but it was unclear to me. We definitely for sure the one lot needs it 45.08, but wasn't uh clear to me that 45.07 needs it. Um, and I
would offer as you've heard that these three variances are all related and and primarily relate to the shared driveway where we could conform with the the culdeac design. But I I think um and hopefully we'll convince you that this is the the better planning alternative um that's being proposed. And then
finally, we have the tree preservation um uh variance. uh where up to 20% tree removals permitted where we're proposing roughly uh 52% in certain locations of the site, but otherwise the subdivision is conforming. As I'm sure the board is
well aware, the statute establishes a two-prong test for C variance relief um where one must apply either the C1 hardship test or C2 uh public benefits test. We also have to address the negative criteria demonstrate that the granting of relief will not um result in
a substantial detriment to the public good nor a substantial impairment to the intent and purpose of the master plan and zoning ordinance. Um beginning with the first variance uh with respect to the shared driveway access in my opinion uh both types of variances uh apply. I'd
offer that the C1 criteria applies given uh again the very irregular a lot shape um which has three frontages on Woods Road, but I'll focus more on the C2 criteria uh and the planning and and public benefits uh for this particular variance. Um the proposed subdivision
again represents a better planning alternative to a new public culde-sac that would only serve two parcels. Uh I would offer that the driveway as proposed is the most practical and least impact impactful alternative to providing access to those two uh lots.
Um and and again requiring a culde-sac that only serves two residential lots would be one atypical and also excessive when there are viable alternatives to serve the same purpose. The driveway at 18 ft in width provides sufficient access and circulation for the two
single family lots in question. Um, and I'll also note that this area of the lot actually has a width of 170 ft where again flag lots of a certain size can have reduced widths of 25 ft. Um, which again the point is to provide sufficient access and and space from surrounding
properties. And I believe the the width of 170 ft achieves that for the driveway that's centrally located uh along the shared lot line. Um, this configuration requires less disturbance and impervious coverage than an RSIS compliant culde-sac. It allows for increased
landscaping as shown on the plans, uh, as well as buffers for adjacent residential properties. It's certainly a more efficient use of the land, um, and can be maintained privately through a public, excuse me, a proposed access agreement. And in general, I uh, I
submit that the configuration functions well. Regarding the second variance, uh this pertains to the non-conforming lot area for lot 45.08 has a lot area of 2.114 acres. Again, it's noted that the RA
zone requires a minimum lot area of 2 acres, but because of of the flag lotion, technically three acres are required. I believe the C1 applies in this case also because of the irregular lot shape. But again, the C2 criteria should be the primary focus. Um the
proposed design again better planning alternative. I'll repeat myself a few times. I'll try not to do it too much. Um and and again trying not to propose the culde-sac for the reasons stated. The parcel uh again speaking specifically about lot 45.08
has a very similar configuration to the adjacent lot 45.07. Both will function well. Um the design shows two conforming dwellings and associated improvements. shows the building envelope with adequate space from adjacent residential properties. U
the lot area um again allows for conforming dwellings to be developed. Third variance um this pertains to the minimum lot width of 82.5 ft for lot 45.08.
again uh reiterate that the lot in this location has an existing non-conforming width of 170 feet which width will be maintained with a shared common access uh with a driveway of 18 ft centrally located on that portion of the site. Um I'll note that of the 25 parcels within
500 ft of the site having frontage on Woods Road only six parcels including this site have conforming law widths of 200 feet. So as proposed this um configuration would be consistent with the surrounding character of of the neighborhood. Um again better planning
alternative. Um we could comply but uh for the reasons stated this is uh what we believe is the best planning alternative. Um and again I would just submit that the lot has sufficient access and separation from adjacent properties. Then finally
the fourth uh variance is for from the tree preservation ordinance. Again, we're only allowed to remove up to 20% of the existing trees on residential lots. We're proposing uh roughly 52%. However, I'll note that the proposed limit of disturbance um demonstrates
extensive preservation. If you look at the concept, those areas shaded in dark green represent the wooded areas to remain, which I I mean almost looks like the bulk of the property. I know we're saying 52% but if you also take into consideration that the we'll call it the southerntherly prong um if you look at
an aerial map which doesn't have the design it actually is a cleared area of the site. So both lots 45.05 and lots 45.06 take advantage of this cleared area and require less um disturbance and tree removal for that reason. Believe both
both prongs of the statutory criteria apply. uh C1 because the lot is mostly wooded. So, it's hard to uh develop the site and comply with that requirement for a site as unique and large as this um particular parcel. But again, we'll
focus on the C2 criteria as the tree removal is necessary to provide required storm water management, which is a net uh public benefit. um and that the strict enforcement of the 20% removal requirement would greatly restrict the development potential of the lot and
render the majority of the site uh into in utility. Um and and I would also submit it would impose somewhat of an undue hardship um from preventing the lot to be developed. The current plan depicts a total of 273 deciduous and evergreen mitigation trees. As stated by
Mr. Ford, we will comply with the entirety of the mitigation requirements if not exceeding those requirements. Um, and as stated previously, the original approval for the 15 unit, u, we'll call it assisted living facility also included the removal of 329 trees. So,
we're not too far off from that, but again, the mitigation, uh, I would offer would outweigh uh, any removal. Regarding the negative criteria, um, it's my opinion that there'd be no substantial detriment to the public good from the granting of the relief. Based
on our community impact uh analysis that was submitted to the board, there are no substantial population, school or fiscal impacts caused by this five lot subdivision. Um the the proposal will have the public benefit of removing dilapidated structures, the benefit of uh the installation of storm water
management where there is none, the installation of street trees which would be an enhancement to the Woods Road rightway. Um as well as developing the lots uh in a manner that's prescribed by the zoning. So again, detached single family zone uh uh use permitted in the
RA zone. There's a specific purpose stated for the RA zone and similar residential zones in section 188-98 of the township code, which states um the purpose is to establish a distribution of population density throughout the township in relation to existing and
prospective facilities, a convenient street system, employment areas, and reasonable predictability of population growth. The standards are intended to offer maximum flexibility in site design and the selection of dwelling unit types in order to offer a balanced housing pattern. Um so in general the
subdivision will result in lots and single family developments that are consistent with the surrounding uh residential development with respect to the master plan. We took a look at the township's 1996 master plan which includes uh an objective that's specific to the township's residential districts
and actually mimics the same as the the purpose in the uh zoning ordinance. So, I I won't repeat that. Um, we also took a look at the township's most recent re-examination report dated 2018, which includes uh two relevant land use objectives, which include um the
township wants to continue exand land use policies that guide development to suitable locations and at appropriate intensities and provide for higher densities only in areas where the public water and sewers and all the necessary public utilities as well as transportation infrastructure are
available. or or provided. So again, we have access to public water and sewer. Site has three separate frontages on Woods Road, which is a uh a street on the official map of the township. Then finally, um there's the objective of planning for population densities in
areas that do not exceed the carrying capacity of natural resources, especially groundwater, and the ability of the soil to sustain on lot sewage disposal systems where public water and sewer are not available. Again, not necessarily relevant to this site, but I believe the design um is sensitive to
the natural features of the site to the extent that it can be. Um and for those reasons, I'd conclude um there is no substantial detriment to the intent and purpose of the master plan and zoning ordinance. Rounding third here, gang, almost there. Um finally with respect to um the
question of advancing se several purposes of the municipal land you saw I'd offer that the application advances purpose A to encourage municipal action to guide the appropriate use or development of all lands in the state which promote the general welfare. Purpose E to promote the establishment of appropriate population densities and
concentrations. Purpose G to provide sufficient spaces and appropriate locations for a variety of residential uses etc. And finally, purpose eye to promote a desirable visual environment uh through creative design techniques. Um so without rehashing too much, in
conclusion, um the team has been listening. Um we've tried to take into consideration the township's uh feedback both plan from the planner and engineer to uh come up with what we believe is the best possible design and planning alternative. Again, we have a very unusual parcel uh both in shape and area
that it's six times more than the minimum lot area requirement. It's a proposed use. Um the the bulk conditions for which we're requesting variance relief are primarily all related to the the specific uh element of the shared driveway design which again for the
reasons stated is the better planning alternative. Tree removal will mit will be mitigated um beyond the what's required. The site will continue to function well and provide sufficient access. Um, and this is also just an opportunity to realize a negligible
increase in update to the township's housing stock and we've satisfied the negative criteria as testified to. So therefore, um, again, for everything we've discussed, uh, it's my opinion that the applicable statutory criteria has been satisfied. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman. Okay, that was easy. Mr. choice. Good evening, Mr. Barren. Barren. Barren. Thank you. Um, and just clarification because you
you were asking about the the one lot. I don't know if there was some confusion in the way I had it in whether or not a variance was required. Yes. So, that was it. It was a question, not a statement. Um, whether or not lot 45.07 requires a lot with variance because it
it exceeds three acres. And my understanding was that a flag lot above 3 acres only needs a a lot width of 25 ft. So it So I could explain the the one wasn't intended to say well it it's not implying variance. U
V if it has a V variance. I have the one as a note saying I was just trying to bring to the board's attention because when it comes to the minimum lot width obviously flag lot wouldn't meet it. Right. So that's why I would was trying well I should say that differently. A
flag lot doesn't have to meet it. So that's why I put the note in number one that the 25 ft is required for flag for flag lots. So I just wanted to clarify to the board and to everyone else I'm not saying that a variance is required for the minimum and I think we said it was. So I wanted
I wanted to clear the air. In my own professional opinion I didn't believe it was required for minimum lot size. I I think your footnote actually helped me realize what I'm I'm here to help clarity. Yes. It's what we do. I'll take you up on that.
Yes. So, thank you for clarifying. Appreciate it. Uh other than that, Mr. Chairman, I don't have any further questions. Okay. Thank you, board members. I see a lot of headshake. Um I have a a topic that I mentioned earlier as far as
um and it's in the economic report on the um affordable housing. Um the fees will be assessed by the building department and applied by the uh to the affordable housing trust fund.
I believe item 11 in in Mr. Quis's report says the affordable housing fee will be 1.5%. Um, and that'll go to the affordable housing trust fund. Um, and this may or may not be relevant and
and I look to council to clarify, but we had a prior application that included 15 units of affordable housing in round three. Will the amount put into the trust fund
be equivalent to what the prior approved development was for 15 affordable housing units? Not not unless it plans on providing $3 million. The going rate pretty much is about around here is about 150 to 200,000
at 15 units. You're looking at two and a two and a quarter to roughly two and a quarter to $3 million. The bigger problem is we got an approved plan with credits approved for 15 units on this site
pursuant to a specific application which was approved because it assisted the municipality relative to its round three obligation. Um it's in the approved plan.
The court approved it. fair share housing signed off on it. The township would have obligations and I'm not totally sure that it can just be wiped away with another application.
It may require further court approval and further court action regarding it as well as how everybody's going to handle this shortfall. And I don't have to tell some of the members of the board that we have
developers who are contending among other things that our failure to meet our obligations under round three is somehow a rationale for round four which I don't understand for the life of me. But leaving that aside, including one of those people who was in fact falling
short of round three. Um, but this is another component. You, you know, there's nothing on the record right now that indicates why we're going in this different direction other than the fact that the applicant now wants to build
five two plus million dollar homes where a application that Mr. O'Grnik handled four years ago I believe for a memory care community is so long no
longer has any value to it. So I would argue minimally that we need testimony relative to why the and the testimony by the way can't come from Mr. Grodnik who sort of tried to answer that
question earlier this evening. But there are there are interesting legal issues stated by a lawyer. What a shock. Interesting legal issues as to whether or not you can simply say, "Oh,
it's in the plan. It got approved, but we're no longer interested. It's your problem. Merry Christmas." because ultimately it becomes your problem. Yours being the municipalities. Let me offer um my perspective and and perhaps a solution. So I I think one of
the questions was we've got minimum testimony as to why the changes occurred in just a 4-year period. Here we are in October 2025. I think if we look back four years to 2021, we probably all recognize that cost of construction has skyrocketed, inflation as well as
interest rates. So to build anything, like Mr. said, the cost of construction has doubled or tripled to really Mr. Barren, based on that alone, nobody should be building because that's the argument we've been hearing. you might be a wonderful uh witness for the municipality
when we get to round four by telling the courts that oh by the way we can't meet our obligations because construction costs have gone up. The issue the issue was and is and I don't think necessarily with all due respect and I deal with your firm in a number of places
um that the cost of construction in and of itself is a justification as to why we've decided to pivot because there isn't a developer around who we have and I think we're going to hear some of us are going to hear
shortly um that isn't going to tell me about how expensive things are and why things couldn't be built. And I don't see the courts right now saying to us, well, you know, that's a problem, but we'll let you all off the
hook. Nobody. The mayor and committeeman Leani and I sat through the mediation with Judge Jacobson on the numbers and I don't recall anybody saying that we're getting a break
in Hillsboro or any of the other towns I represent because construction costs have gone up in the last five years. Everybody recognizes that. Well, let me I I I did have more to say. So, let me when we get to the issue of the site being in the plan. So, we did look at the plans and the site is
referenced in a single line item in both the third round housing plan which is uh dated 2023 and your most recent plan uh June 2025 um which basically has the same line item. So, it includes the site uh under the category of supportive
housing for 15 units based on based on the approval. Well, so let me get there. Let me have a coherent right. So if we go back to the approval right which was a use variance for a dementia care facility is my understanding the resolution doesn't
have one statement about of affordable housing there's no commitment to provide affordable housing there's no um condition to provide a deed restriction which is often the case and I believe I wasn't involved in that application but my understanding is that the testimony and the granting of the use variance by the not this board but by the zoning
board was for a market rate facility so all if not most of those units Maybe there would be a 15% affordable set aside potentially, but most of the units were represented as being market rate and and and even luxury units. And the analogy I would draw is if you have an
assisted living facility, all of those units would not be counted as affordable. Usually there's a dedicated 10% uh Medicaid eligible. Those units would be qualified as affordable. And certainly the applicant, while he got an approval, I I don't believe is compelled
to act on that approval. Um I don't think he's been he was not party to the settlement agreement between the township and fair share housing center. So, subsequent to his G getting the approval, um I think the township saw it as an opportunity to include it in the housing plan, which probably made sense
at the time. And conditions change. And I think um as long as the the applicant's not bound by any commitment to have to develop the site in one way or the other, conditions can change and they can submit for an approval. in the
application before this board I would respect submit uh submit respectfully is that it's for this subdivision application. Um but I do have a solution to your problem because uh or this issue let's say I don't want to call it a problem this issue and Mr. Bernste said
our or indicated implied our firm represents a number of about 50 towns doing affordable housing throughout New Jersey. So very familiar with the new legislation, how all this works. When I was looking at the settlement agreement with Fair Share Housing Center, it includes the township's vacant land analysis, and it lists this particular
site, which is block 204, lot 45.01, as contributing to the township's third round realistic development potential. So on the one hand, the site's identified as vacant, creating an obligation, but it's satisfying that obligation. So it's a watch. It's a
wash. The legislation and prior um COA regulations allowed towns to recognize change circumstances. This would be a change circumstance where the developer um is no longer proposing a development. Um I've seen in other cases where sites have opted out of a housing plan.
They're entitled to do that. I've seen that with group homes uh and other types of developments where they just said, "We're not willing to do the deed restriction. We, you know, we don't want to be part of your plan for XYZ reason." And that's that's allowed. So as much as developers want to be in the plan, others can say, "Well, we're not part of
the plan." Um, but again, I think the solution is without arguing about whether it qualifies and this or that is that it's simply a change circumstance. So while it generates the obligation, it satisfied that. And I would offer that because it's a change circumstance, it's no longer a feasible project, that that
RDP should be eliminated and therefore the removal of the plan mechanism would also be a wash. I don't want to make that argument. I'd like to make that argument if that's the case. Just for the record, for the for the
record of the board, the settlement agreement the township entered into with Fair Share Housing Center is March 27th, 2020. Um, we ran, trust me, and those Mr. I
don't know if Mr. choices. I can tell you that every item in this plan was run by the special master, was run by fair share housing, was run by Judge Miller before it got approved that there was a
requirement and Green Care Center was in it. And at no point along the way did anyone raise a flag with us of all the people who reviewed it that oh it doesn't have the deed restriction therefore and trust me for those of you
who have not been through this miss McManis and Mr. Gordon from fair share housing don't give anybody anything there isn't a break given so they had to believe that this was actually a qualifying situation and we had to provide the
resolutions regarding same so if Mr. Grodnik's client wants to make that pitch to fair share housing and the special adjudicator that this is a change circumstance. And by the way, the
the law is not nearly that clear. If you just declare yourself a change circumstance, you're out. The requirement basically is if you can't make it work, you have to have an alternative. You don't get a freebie and, you know, declare it no longer. I don't have a
problem with that, but I don't think it's this board's obligation. I don't think it's the township's obligation to make that claim. The thing is in the plan, and it's not like it's been a big hiding issue. Mr. O'Rnik's office was
part of this round three obligation representing not Green Care Center in this case, but other parties in this case. And um I think if the applicant wants to make that pitch, they should,
but this board can't grant it in terms of exchange circumstance. I just don't see how it's it's really relevant. I mean, typically we see developers saying, um, you know, we can't build this. This is not feasible, but if you give us another 50 units,
yeah, maybe we'll make it feasible. This is an application for a residential subdivision. uh we're not proposing 65 town homes or 100 town homes. Um the courts I think are pretty clear, you know,
unfortunately that and I and I point to in readoption of Monroe Township Planning Board 442 NJ Super 565 and it's an appellet division case that talks about really a year a year on that by the way. What's that?
What's the year of the court decision? 2015. Thank you. And it held uh that it's the municipality in the municipality, not the private developer to provide that obligation for a realistic opportunity for the construction of affordable housing. So I don't think that there's,
you know, we don't owe 15 units because we're applying for a minor or major subdivision and we meet the requirements. This wasn't reszoned. Um the settlement agreement in 2020 included this site before the approval. Um and I think
that's relevant as well. Um but it's not it's not really up to the up to a developer who says, you know what, I don't want to build whatever the whatever the project is. I want to go to a conforming use. Um so unfortunately, I think it's the the township's obligation
to make any revisions that they wish to make or in all likelihood address it in round four. And I noticed today as I was reading uh that your case from 2015, it's still in litigation to the the round three is
still in litigation. I just saw a motion being filed by the Sherwood Track for a hearing, you know, later this month. So it has nothing to do with the affordable housing obligation. And it deals with an issue of whether or not the township has an obligation to pay for additional
costs on a litigation. And everything right now related to round three comes under the 2015 docket number. But it has nothing to do with the round three obligation. Our numbers are met on Sherman at least on that phase. But I
don't see any contractual obligation. I don't see any resolution compliance. I would submit that even if there was a resolution that said you had to have a set aside of 24% that you could compel a developer to
construct a project or consider that they somehow owe those units. So, this is a simple application. I understand that there's impacts um to your round three plan um
but that's not really this developer's problem. So a question. So how was this property? What not qu how was this property entered into the uh round three
affordable housing plan unilaterally without the consent of the applicant? I asked my attorney. How is it the parties were aware that they memory care community that met the obligations would be considered as part of the township's plan?
Did they have the opportunity to object of I'm unaware of you. The plan was well documented. It was published. There were parties involved. Was this specific party given an opportunity to object per se? No.
But the plan was public. It's not like it was hidden. It was set forth in the plan. And I go back to my earlier comment. As as members of the committee on the board are aware, everybody and his brother related to this has reviews
these plans with a fine tooth comb. Most notably, the group we entered into an agreement for back in March of 2020. Forget this round. Round three was as equally problematic as round four. So again, Mr. Rodnick's comment to you
basically is approved my client and it's the township's problem to deal with the 15 units. That may be a decision you all want to make, but understand that there's an impact because the developer no longer wants to be obligated to a
prior approval that was granted. And the argument apparently because we have no testimony is that somehow changing construction cause now generated versus the fact it's conforming. It's always been conforming. The the
zoning correct me if I'm wrong Mr. Kis hasn't changed on this property in years. So when the applicant came here back in 2020 2021 seeking the item, this board granted the
approval along I believe with the zoning board to build the memory care facility that it now apparently no longer wants to build. And if it were it had no impact on the plan, I don't think it would matter one way or the other. It would be
up to the board whether but there is an impact and basically developers comment to you all is it's your problem. not necessarily the board, but it becomes the township's problem. I would just say that I'm just quoting
an appellet division decision that holds that. It's not it's not nothing personal, which which by the way predates, my recollection is correct, Judge Leia's decision relative to round three. But how does a municipal obligation shift to a private developer? I mean it
happens all the time where developer for he could just wake up one day. Can can you name me a a court case that that happened or I I could I mean don't I don't want to hear generalities on this. I want some facts because right now what I'm leaning towards right now because the the ask of
here is going to be to wait judgment or overturn I think what another board did the zoning board. Um I'm almost inclined that we make this part of a conditional. If if we decide to grant approval, it would be part of the condition that this needs to be resolved with fair share
housing and the court. Well, that's why I mean the court fair share housing and the court. Well, they they are the township. I know I think jud I think judge men would tend to disagree if you wanted. Mr. Chairman, the township designated
this site unilaterally before the application was heard. I think property well I was sorry I was going to say properties get into affordable housing plans before their applications are approved round four's got I can't three or four properties in
there I can't answer that argument because it didn't find its way into this plan unilaterally it found its way into the plan because there was a basis for putting it in the plan there was some kind of approvals
for this plan. It didn't end and and not only did not end up that way, it had to be we did not we we sent a bunch of documents to fair share house. We didn't even we sent fairshare housing a table and they said looks good to us that I
can absolutely guarantee you did not happen. They never said oh we see this list here and trust me we literally had to backtrack everybody in this table. There is a multitude of in par for those of
you I think have a copy paragraph seven of the settlement agreement a multitude of places where we took we got units and credits for non-ra what I would call traditional development
housing whether it was one unit two units five units 15 units etc we had to produce proofs for all of these otherwise it wasn't going to get approved So somewhere along the way there were proofs relative to same that everybody was satisfied with and
everybody knew what it was and miracle of miracles a memory care facility of 15 units just somehow gets approved whether it precedes or doesn't. So I'm not how sure how anyone was quote surprised close quote.
We weren't a party to the settlement agreement. I mean you can't bind a developer unilaterally. I mean, that's basic contract law. There's not like there's a redevelopers agreement or a developers agreement that requires this
set aside. What's before the board is a simple subdivision. We would be if if the board would rather have 6575 town homes there with a 24% set aside, we would absolutely consider that for this site. I mean, that would be, you know,
probably preferred by the developer. We felt that this that this plan was consistent with the zoning and we can make a fully conforming subdivision plan. I've sat in on several hearings. I've gotten wound up a lot. So, I don't
appreciate your comment about what else would be suitable for this 65 75 units. I don't appreciate the wise ass remark. It's not. It Yes, it is. and and I've sat in and I've taken it in the shorts from the
court from other developers, sat there and heard it. And so I so I don't I'm trying to I raise this for a reason that we're getting rad over the coals for not being able to meet round three and here we have something that's
taking something and making round three worse. That's the only reason I bring it up and I want it and I'd like it resolved. And so one way or another, you know, we got 15 credits. I don't know if it was 15 units. 15 credits, right? We got more bedrooms.
Yeah. So that's why I bring it up. I mean, yeah, you have a simple application here. I think we're all ready to approve it absent this issue. Honestly, I'm I'm I'm sensitive to your concerns.
We represent a lot of adjacent municipalities that are going through the same concerns. But again, this is what's before this board. We we stand on our merits of of the proofs that we've demonstrated
uh to have a conforming major subdivision for single family residential and a residential agricultural zone. What I think just for interest because I think we're going to continue discussing this a little bit later. So, I'd like to open up to the public if no board members have additional questions of the
I don't applicants planner to allow the public to come up and cross-examine the applicant's planner on his testimony and no still open to public.
Yeah. Well, we're not there yet. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. We do have to close it right before we go to the last bite. Yeah, I I I have a question for the planner. Um, and it's once again
I'm just really curious your opinion. Um, you know, with all your experience, you know, in planning and and um, you know, in this industry, what is the highest and best use for this for this parcel?
That that's permitted. That's a loaded question. So, if you look at the zoning ordinance, um I I didn't memorize all the permitted uses, but certainly detached single family housing. So, if you're looking at strictly by right use, that's probably the highest and best use. If you if you wanted something like
a resoning or uh a use variance like was previously granted, you could probably get more value out of it that way. So, I think there's two ways to answer it. One is again adhering to the current zoning, single family development. Um if you wanted more flexibility, you would ask
for uh again use variance or reszoning to grant some other type of uh development likely residential given the context, you know, it wouldn't be I don't think it'd be suitable for industrial or something like that or a Wawa, you know, given the the shape, etc. But um 12 acre site, right? I mean,
it's twoacre zoning, but you could do a lot with 12 acres that and that's not the threat. that just you know from a value perspective. Yeah, it is what it is. Thank you. I was just curious your question. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Just for
I believe Mr. I don't recall whether it was Mr. O'Rnik or Mr. Ford commented that the proposed sale price of these homes was somewhere around what 2.3 million. I mean somebody somebody somebody profered the
number. I'm not sure whether it was you or it was mine. Okay. Based upon our discussions we're and market rate. Yeah. That's we're looking at a range for single family construction for new construction in Hillsboro to be in that range. If you assume for the sake of
this discussion that they are all assessed at $2 million of which there are five and the requirement is one one and a half% correct you're talking $150,000
added to the affordable housing trust fund. So just keep that in mind. So as the mayor said, you know, we have this number that we are obligated to build in round three of X
and unmet need would would come into play then If these well actually we have we have no we have no one need at the moment but this would qualify as potentially right and then we would have to go out and find replacements for this right
somewhere somehow I'm sure Mr. Ro against co. Um, but do we by do we need and I'm just asking as rhetorical since it's in our plan and do
we need to have fair share set at Allen Court allow us to take it out and put it into an unmet need. I would argue that. Yeah. So therefore it would be almost a contingent
approval that would have to come before the courts. That's yeah I think it's got to be conditioned and then at that point if it if it does or doesn't you know decision is made on that after that may have to come back
here. Just for clarification would that be an amendment to the third round settlement that's in litigation or for the with respect to third round. Let me let me let me be absolutely abundantly clear. The third round is not
in litigation in terms of any agreements. What's in litigation right now is a claim made by a developer for additional funding from the municipality for a shortfall in building affordable housing. That's the issue in litigation.
Not the town's plan, not the town's obligation, not the town's agreement, nothing of that sort. That's the issue. Correct. Do you need a break? Okay, we are going to take a time out to give our
senographer 10-minute break. We'll reconvene at 10 after 9ine. Fingers are burning. There we go. We're back. I like that. Huh?
It is. Okay, we're back in session. Mr. Bernstein. Nick has another witness. Yes. Um I'd like to intro introduce uh Rajit Singh. He's the me managing member
of u the applicant Greenare Farms LLC. Can you get sworn in please? Yes I do. I pull it closer sir. Rajie Singh. R A J I V S I N G H. Could
you give us a little bit of background of um of what you've done over the last 30 40 years and and how did you end up here in Hillsboro with this property? Well um my background my formal education is in engineering and um uh
while I was in school I stumbled upon technology. I started a tech company. Um, and then I sold that um and uh in in 2001 and uh
and then I uh I bought a Keller Williams real estate franchise which is located in Montgomery. And actually the I lived in in in Hillsboro for a couple years in the mid 80s in the mid 90s um prior to
moving to Montgomery. And then I I own a title insurance uh company which I've been in that business since 1995. And uh I've been in the mortgage mortgage industry since 1983. So I I haven't been a developer but I
have been uh I've as a lender uh I've participated in projects uh construction projects. So I have a little bit of knowledge of that. Now, I have a family history of Alzheimer's. My both my paternal grandparents had
Alzheimer's. My father had Alzheimer's. My mother-in-law had uh vascular dementia. And um so I I I always felt that, you know, it my dad was very sick for a very long period of time. So I I I really
wanted to do something about that. So, um I was talking to a friend of mine, Jazz Bajage, who's uh he's chair of uh of the ICU and emergency room at uh Pen Medicine in Plansboro. And I said, 'You know, these guys that have Alzheimer's,
we we stuff them into memory care wings and and and and you know, we we sedate them and we put them in wheelchairs and we we we we treat them like animals and they're, you know, it's it's horrible. It's there's got to be something better.
So, he said, you know, I have just the person for you to talk to. And his name was um David Burilli. He's my uh partner. And Dave has is very passionate about endof life care for Alzheimer's and I have the gene by the way. So um so
Dave uh and he's one of the top geriatric physicians um al specializing in Alzheimer's in the world actually. And um so we we we started talking about this uh about 11 years ago. So he told me and explained
to me about um the care that takes place in Europe, specifically the Netherlands. Um the Dutch have a a um a genetic disposition for Alzheimer's as do the Japanese. So he said, "You got to go
over there." So, I went over there and um you know, I took a trip there and uh and I visited some what they call care farms and I was fascinated by it and um I over the the course of the next couple
years, I spent about six months visiting different care farms and uh we decide we decided to to uh to start uh looking into doing something So we came up with the concept of green
care farms which instead of sedating uh Alzheimer's patients you put them in a in an environment where uh you know in a in a farming environment uh not hardcore farming but you know where there's
plants and there's greenery and there's small farm animals like chickens and and and and baby goats and things like that. um and instead of sedating them and this has been very successful in Europe. So, Green Care Farms is actually was a
public for public benefit. Uh, it was not a a uh for-profit organization and um, you know, I've always been in private industry, so I've never been involved with the bureaucra the bureaucracy that takes place and you
know, it took us a long time to figure out what needed to be done. And when we started on this, I was in my late 40s. And by the time we, you know, you know, I burned through, you know, well over a
million dollars and, you know, we aged and we just, you know, my Dave is not entrepreneurial. He's very good at what he does and I love him. and I just did
not have enough left in me to to do to build it. And and also if you look at the economics of it, this is not a Medicare Medicaid facility. This is
100% private pay and the these are the the occupancy rates have gone down significantly. That's one aspect of it. And then also if you look at what the government is trying to do
uh when it comes to Medicare and Medicaid, they are trying to have their policies as such that that reimbursements go or done. They're encouraging Alzheimer's patients to be
taken care of in the home. So that with the rise in in construction costs, um it's just and then plus, you know, I'm I'm at an age where I can't do it anymore. I just can't I just don't and I
and I'm going to have Alzheimer's, you know, so I mean I'm I'm I'm 60 years old now. I have to I have to look at the you know, you have to be at some point you have to say, hey, you know, is this feasible? you know, do am I am I going
to it's it's going to take it took us this long to get to where we were and it's going to take 3 4 years to build. So like do I want to be doing this for the rest of my life, right? And then I have some other health issues that I
don't want to get into. Um and then um so you know I I'm I'm you know I'm just trying to salvage whatever I can out of this and and that's why you know we and I try we tried to sell it as a memory care facility. I'm in the business,
right? I have 100 over 100 agents. We tried to sell it as as you know with all the approvals in place and nobody wants to touch a facility that only has 50 15 you know if they're going to do it they want something big and our our we were
never about making money. We just wanted to do something that was really revolutionary but I just can't do it. I just can't do it. and my partner is he's not in a position to run a facility like that. So that's why we kind of had to
you know you know we had a lot we had to do what we could to um to get our you know what whatever little we can get out you know I'm well into this into the seven figures. So, I'm not going to make
I mean, forget about the time and effort that I put into it. I put my life into it cuz I really really wanted to do something special. Um, but that's where I'm at. And you know, I was never a party to like any type of COA and and
you know, I don't see how this facility, even though it was may have been approved for, you know, a community home, I don't see how this in the spirit of COA, I don't see how this fits in that. But I was never a party to
anything about COA. The first time I heard about it was when, you know, a few months ago when I got this letter that, you know, there's some COA issues. And I'm like, I never heard of any COA. Nobody sent me a letter. Nobody I I was never I never agreed to to anything like
that. And I don't think it's fair either, you know. So, that's kind of the history. If I if I was, you know, 20 years younger or 10 years younger even. Now, when we initially started, we figured, hey, we'll have this facility up in a year. You know, uh I I didn't
know, you know, what it took to go through NJOH, DCA, and all the other stuff we had to do. It was just a monumental, you know, journey that, you know, that uh you know, I mean, I I I wish I never
went through it, you know, but at this point, I I'm at where I'm at and I'm just trying to um salvage whatever I can. um you know to you know mitigate as much as my law of my loss as I can. I'm not developing this myself. But I think
for the community I mean to have $2 million houses in that area it's going to be good for that area. You know all the houses values will go up there. So um that's could you just touch on some of the financial considerations related to the
construction costs as well as some market conditions related to demand for this particular product? Yeah, I mean listen the the cost of of the carrying cost the interest rates have gone up from when we were originally doing it and um listen if we
would have built the facility I would be bankrupt today. There's no way. There's there you could not I mean if you're looking at having five or six people there that are paying six 700 bucks a day you know you got to have 24 hours a
day you have to have a RN there. There's no way that you could it was financially feasible. Uh the construction of it was you know it was a singlestory facility with 15 rooms 15 bathrooms a luxury
kitchen. there's it it didn't make any financial sense. We we just couldn't do it. Um and like I said, you know, occupancy rates if you go to any any of these these type of memory care facilities, they're they're at all-time
lows because, you know, there there there's change and then people can't just they just can't afford it. You know, it's not it it probably was a um it probably was not planned well. And you know I I don't have any healthc care
background and my my partner had no entrepreneurial background. So it was kind of a a bad it was a bad plan from the very beginning. I have no further questions for Mr. Sing board members.
Anyone from the public? Oh, we do have someone. And when you come to the mic to your right, just please state your name and address for the record, please.
Uh Judy Lavoy, 255 Woods Road. Judy Lavoy, 255 Woods Road. Um, I'm not against developing the property, but why can't we just do what you could do on the property? Why do we got to change things? We make
rules for a reason, don't we? So, why do we need variances? Just look at the property, what you're qualified to do on it, put it on there. Why do we got to squeeze five on there? Just do what you could do. what it's
could be approved for without changing the rules. Just ask a question of of the testimony here. So, I know you're kind of doing a general question which would be later, but this this part of it is just ask a question of what what maybe what he
said. You understand my question? Uh yeah, I think we could build six houses on there. That's my right. Oh, by following like all the ordinance, following all the proper ordinance. I mean, I think it's like it's two two
per house. You you you need two acres. Uh five I believe it's three acres for a flag lot. Well, we had provided on A4 a conforming plan that didn't have any variance relief. It would be fully conforming, which would be an as of right approval.
We enough road frontage for uh 200 foot for each house and like that. So we we yes we provided a concept plan that would be for a culde-sac that would provide the necessary the road right
in the town would have to take care of the road. Now the township wouldn't have to take care of the road township mo typically in central Jersey at least municipalities are not accepting public dedications of small subdivision roadways. I don't know all the rules, but uh
can we maybe have Mr. Ford come up and put up A4? Sure. Which I believe is what you can your argument is is a so-called compliant plan. Correct, Michael?
The last one, A4. But let them put it up on the screen everybody. I can't see that. Can you put it up? You're a big help. Give her this.
Let the planner. Well, then I was misunderstood. I thought there's certain road. Same thing. T coming up just
no not the witness in case he's actually has to answer a question. We unfortunately we're out of battery power today. I understand that. I'm more interested that you're out of a you're out of a witness there. Okay. There's nobody to ask you a question.
Yep. I guess not. I see no takers. All right. Mr. Arodnik's last words. Yep. Closing argument. Um, I don't really have anything to add. Um,
you know, I can tell you that the discussions that I have in our office every day relate to um the problem that's facing pretty much every municipality, which is that projects that from round three that didn't get built. And that's something that the
courts are going to have to address. Fair Share is going to have to address it. Um but for purposes of Rajie's application uh we're we're here to propose if the if the board wants a fully compliant variance-free
application or uh looking at the feedback from the professionals to incorporate some changes that we think are good changes. Uh but we defer to the board on on uh on the design elements what what they would prefer. Um, we think I would wholeheartedly
agree that, you know, when you look at subdivisions this small, you're you're typically not getting, you know, a large builder. You're getting a custom builder. And I would submit that that is that this type of infill development is the ideal de uh
type of development for Woods Road. Uh, these are going to be beautiful private custom homes and uh I would ask the board to approve that. Uh we certainly have no problem advising the corridor fair share that we're no longer that
this project is no longer vis feasible. Um and therefore there could be an adjustment related to the vacant land that is that was included. Um but again we're really here just on a relatively simple uh five lot
subdivision. Um and you know unfortunately we can't uh we can't you know meet any type of credits with the proposed use because single family residential. Uh but we can
do what we our part and comply with the ordinance and submit uh a considerable sum of money about $150,000 to the COA fund. Uh and hopefully um these factors are are you know I I would
just ask the board to just look at the application um without considering um the impact to potential round three adjustments related to the fair share settlement agreement. [Music]
So, this is the time where the public gets the last bite at the apple. If anyone from the public would like to just to give their thoughts on the application, you're feel free to come up. Okay. So, with that, motion to close.
So moved. Second. All in favor? I I Okay, Mr. Bernste, I think you've gotten a certain amount of testimony relative to the changing conditions. I frankly think based on what we'll have
to deal with that the board needs to maximize or let me rephrase it, minimize the changes in the plan, i.e. variances, waiverss, etc. I think all the trees that need to be on the site need to be on the site if not
removed replaced that the plan be as compliant as possible and applicant has produced a comp what he believes to be subject to Mr. Ko and Mr. may use reviews etc. compliant plan that doesn't require the
various variances. Correct me if I'm wrong, Michael. I don't believe there's any variances if we go with the alternate design. You know, again, we were taking the lead from your professionals on those design changes because the rather than the shared driveway, the culde-sac, which would be
the requirement of either the homeowners who own the property themselves or a homeowners association. um we'll have to deal with the other issues and to the extent the applicant is willing to and participates in such to
assist we'll deal with it accordingly. Board members deliberate I'll lead off um since I was here in 2020 one of the few maybe Mr. Pson was here and chairman I think may one of the mayor was here maybe just beginning. Uh
I can appreciate the trouble that Mr. Sang has created or encountered in developing a a a program or a original application of what he thought was a um a love of
trying to do something for the good of the population and maybe didn't create a or didn't look at the the plan as closely as from a business standpoint as he thought of and as the things started to unravel he realized it wasn't uh feasible economically but the state of
New Jersey puts us in a bind, right, by and Mr. O'Rnik is fully aware of the affordable housing mandate that is imposed on Hillsboro Township and every municipality around. Um, and we have to meet that number or
fear of builder's remedy lawsuits, meet compliant plans, and we struggle and we meet with inter interveners and we go through hours and hours of time to try and come up with a compliant plan. And then then even though we have a compliant plan, we have
to seemingly chase down our builders to who are ready, willing, and able to build something to actually build what they said they were going to build. Um, this plan in itself is a nice plan. I'll give you, you know, it's five nice homes. It's going to add value to the
township. Um, and I I I just I am angry in the fact that um we have to go that back and now find lots to sub to meet our obligation. I
don't necessarily blame Mr. saying, "Are you guys for that?" But the fact of the matter is now we again are moving the goalposts and the mayor and I have talked about this and a former mayor chairman has dealt with this. It's just
frustrating and I hope we don't come across that we're have any animosity toward the applicant. It's just frustrating, especially in this round and what we're dealing with right now. And and quite honestly, the people of Hillsboro are frustrated with the affordable housing
and and all the stuff that we have to deal with. Um, so I don't want to say that we're picking on you, so to speak. It's just we're frustrated. Okay. Um, I think the plan is good. I I think the
the application with the shared driveway as opposed to the big road in my opinion is the is the better uh application. Um as opposed to a large road. I think from a maintenance standpoint for the for the HOA would be easier. Um, I would I would
say that um I would I would make a motion to approve that plan as long as all the um waiverss were met or no waiverss meeting all your tree obligations, all your things that you need to do, you
know, the one variance that we're going to have to v give you for the for the shared driveway. Um, and the 150,000 or whatever the one and a half% that you need to pay to the fair share. Um uh what I would ask if you if we need
you and fair share is asking us why that we have that testimony that we can use to why you changed the application and that why we are now short those
units. So that would be my motion. Well, I I'll echo uh Sean's comments. Um and with that, I'll I'll second that motion. Okay. So, we have a motion to approve the application along with everything that
was agreed. The application with the shared driveway between the two houses. the responsibility for the maintenance of sex shared driveway shall be shared, no pun intended, between the homeowners and that it will be in the resolution as well as in any deeds for those
properties. That the property owner will replace any and all trees place on the property that it will comply with all the items that is previously indicated. It will comply to as well as conditions to pay
the applicable affordable housing trust fund money and to assist if required by the township to address any issues related to the change in conditions that brought us to the situation at hand. Okay,
Michael, anything last word? No. Okay, thank you. So with that, may I have a roll call, please? Mr. Flag, yes. Mr. Vitali, yes. Miss Smith,
yes. Committee, yes. Mayor Cherelli, yes. And I look forward to Mr. Ro's cooperation as we deal with fair share. Certainly. Vice Chair Pas. Yes. Chair Sarra.
Yes. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, as I indicated previously, and I will confirm again for the record, next week's application for Harvard Way, which was to come back,
um, if you recall at the last hearing, and Mr. Grognik probably should sit in I guess another round of whatever, um, is that a motion was made by Mr. Afron who was
here at the last hearing seeking intervention on behalf of individuals as well as the green care community. That motion is still pending. His honor was supposed to rule on it tomorrow. Sub sub subsequent to the filing of the motion
and prior to hearing from the court. My office was first advised that Miss Angel's father was basically close to and apparently has subsequently passed away. She is therefore unavailable to be here in next Thursday
and she's handling this issue more than I am in terms of this matter. In the interim late this afternoon, we received notification from his honor on two issues. One, he wants to hear oral argument and his court calendar is so
full on Friday tomorrow that he has no time to hear it. And B, he's notified us that at 2:00 p.m. next Friday, he will hear oral argument on Mr. Afron's motion to intervene in Mr. O'Bronik's Mr. Flynn
I'll speak motion to an objection. So until that issue is resolved in terms of who's in and who's out and I also suspect based on Mr. Brook's comment, we're going to try to get some clarity on that item about the public input.
There is no need for next Thursday night's application for Harvard Way. I don't know if there's anything else on the agenda. No, there's nothing else on the agenda. We can probably any resolutions could
probably wait. The next meeting is what? November 13th. We also have a business meeting. Can you just carry Harvard Way to that date? We're going to carry Har I'm going to recommend we carry Harvard Way to
November 13th without further notice. But equally in addition, whatever else we have to bring before you, we may have some resolutions etc. I would remind for lack of a better phrase as we are
referring to them the FAB five um that if there are problems in terms of your schedule over this meeting, that one or the following meeting that you can please advise us. because in the absence of all five of you and I know Bob is not here tonight to defend
himself um there is no quorum so at least for that application there may be a quorum for others I'm assuming there are other applications and the board may end up having to deliberate over a period of time but you know to the extent we have no control
over next Thursday that's where we are so the first item Mr. Chairman, there's a motion to continue the Harvard Way application to Thursday, November 13th, 2025 at 7 p.m.
or soon thereafters. The matter may be heard without further notice. Okay. Is there a motion? Oh, sorry. I'm so sorry. So, November 13th, we have the Derling application. Then there's November 6th that's open.
I thought I asked when the next meeting was and the words I heard were November 13th. That my fault. I thought that was the next one. We have a meeting on the 6th. I could double check. Um that's what mine is showing up. I don't think there is one. I only think there's one on the third.
Could be wrong on our list. Um yeah, it's on the 6th. Yeah, November 6th is open. You have a problem. Okay, why don't we carry it to November the 6th without further notice and Mr. for a rod. He can go home. So move to
second. We got to do roll call. Yep. Roll call, please. Thank you, Michael. Uh, Miss Smith, yes. Committee, yes. Mayor Cherelli, yes. Vice Chair Pasen, yes. Chair, yes. And then I was the motion and second on
that. Smith. Leani Smith. Thank you. And I know we have a business meeting scheduled for the 23rd. Uh, is there a motion to cancel the business meeting? Maybe. Maybe.
Maybe. So moved. Second. This is a motion to cancel both the October 16th and the October 23rd meetings. No, we just did the I thought you say you want to keep the 16th open in case we have any kind of
work that we need. Yeah, let's leave the 16. Just the 23rd then in case we got a resolution though. I doubt. Okay. Do you have resolutions in your I don't believe we have we it it took a lot out of us to produce that
250 245 page resolution you all got um I would ask let me let's start with it motion to cancel the October 23rd meeting I believe Mr. Leani made the motion yes second
Miss Smith seconded all in favor I all right Mr. Chairman, I would ask a second motion to authorize the chair to cancel the October 16th, 2025 meeting if he in consultation with my office and
Mr. Kois's office determined there was no need for that meeting. So moved. Second. Roll call. Mr. Flag, yes. Mr. Vitali, yes. Miss Smith, yes. Commani,
yes. Senator Carelli. Yes. Vice Chair Pen. Sure. Sheriff Sarra. Yes. All right. What do we have on for the sixth right now? Anything. It was blank. Okay. It's nothing. Well, I mean, now officially Harvard.
Okay. All right. Um, we will endeavor to advise the board once his honor makes a decision what the plan is because as I said, I don't know what he's going to do or not going to do until he renders a decision. I am hopeful that we will he will render
one on the 17th, but I wouldn't count on it. Okay, fair enough. All right. So, with that, I will entertain a motion of adjournment. So, moved. Second. All in favor? I we're journal