##VIDEO ID:K2Sm61CAgjc## good evening everyone and welcome to the Hillsboro Township planning meeting of September 5th 2024 please join me and salute to the [Music] flag aliance 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 AIS meeting has been duly advertised cor section five of the open public meetings act chapter 231 Public Law 1975 otherwise known as Sunshine Law notice of the 2024 annual meeting schedule has been provided to the officially designated newspapers the Township Clerk posted on the Township's website and available here at the Township municipal complex in addition application documents and plans have been made available on the township Civic clerk website at least 10 days in advance of this evening's meeting complete application files are available the planning and zoning department for inspection in accordance with the public meeting notice that may have a roll call of board members and also board in Township professionals please Deputy Mayor chiarelli and Miss Smith are absent Mr Wagner here Mr Vander vet is also absent uh Mr rtz here Mr scobo here Mr vital here Mr Depp here commit in the P present Deputy Mayor is not here so sry uh Vice chair PE pres chair s here presin here Mr May here and myself and the videographer here oh I'm sorry Miss Paul I'm looking at the thing and your I'm here did me dirty not a good night tonight Michael yeah well we we'll take the pace down just a bit I me okay first up we have consideration of meeting minutes first up is meeting minutes of May 9th 2024 Mr bernin who's eligible Mr rtz Mr scobo Mr Deb committee leani and yourself thank you may have a motion to approve I'll make that motion second third okay Mr yep any comments from De hearing none roll call please Mr rtz yes Mr scobo yes Mr Deb yes commit in the P yesi yes next meeting minutes of June 6 2024 Mr Wagner Mr rtz Mr scobo Mr Vitali commit leani and yourself thank you is there a motion to approve so move Mr chairman second too slow comments from the D roll call please Mr Wagner yes Mr rtz yes Mr scobo yes Mr Vitali yes commit M Pon yes Cher Raji yes next the minutes of June 13 2024 Mr Wagner Mr rtz Mr scobo Mr Vitali committee man Leon Vice chair Pon and yourself thank you is there a motion to approve so moved second okay comments from theas hearing none roll call please Mr Wagner yes Mr adwits yes Mr scobo yes Vitali yes commit in the P yes Vice chair PE yes chair yes minutes June 11th 2024 Mr Wagner Mr scobo committee man leani Vice chair P motion actually July 11th July 11th I say June yes okay so moved second comments from today roll call please Mr Wagner yes Mr scobo yes Milani yes Vice chair PE yes okay and finally the meeting minutes of August 1st 2024 that was our special meeting Mr Wagner Mr rtz Mr scobo Mr Deb committeeman leani Vice chair p and chairman thank you motion to approve so moved second okay any very got a second oh I'm sorry it's all right we're all having a night so far so any comments from the day hearing none roll call please Mr bagner yes Mr RTS yes Mr scobo yes Mr de yes Le yes sh PE yes Sher yes next is consideration consideration of resolutions we have the Sherman track Phase 2 Eminem camplan Road LLC file number 23- pb-8 dmsp which was revised and Mr Bernson you look like you got something to say um I have apologize to the board for bringing you all in the beginning of last month but this became an issue somewhat subsequent to such so a condition has been added in the resolution that confirms that the adoption of this resolution is in fact meeting one of the conditions of phase one of the Glen Gary property which if you recall one of the conditions was that they have a fully completed and approved affordable housing appli ation for the project so we're asking you again to adopt the resolution okay thank you coise any to add on your end I have nothing to add Mr chairman thank you okay so with that is there a motion to approve the revised resolution the eligible members are Mr Wagner Mr rtz Mr scobo Mr Vitali committee M leani the vice chair and the chair okay thank you is there a motion so moveed okay s second thank you any last comments hearing on roll call please Mr Wagner yes Mr rtz yes Mr scobo yes Mr vital yes common yes chair peas yes CH s yes we do not have any planning board business this evening nor consideration of ordinances so now we'll move from business from the floor for matters that are not on this evening's agenda so if anyone would like to comment please come forward and as always please refrain from any direct or indirect comments regarding warehouses in general and please keep the comments to five minutes thank you Mr chairman for your consideration state your name and address even though I know it that's my name for your consideration David Brooke address address Mr Brooke for the purpose of the address home address home address you know you've been here before seven Winding Way in Hillsboro thank you spring training all Summer's over I know well yeah welcome back everybody we're here for some fun as all of you know or have begun to know this place is the best show in town it's the place to see and be seen and because of that for your consideration I would like to ask the planning board to consider the idea of live streaming the meetings the township committee does it and I think because of your incredible popularity that it would make sense to begin to start to do that I think it would be very helpful to the residents to be able to live stream and to be able to see the meetings as they are occurring that's one the second one as part of that I think which is also a really important consideration that I would ask you to think about is public comments and I would like to ask if there is a way as part of that to allow for public comments on hearing matters to be submitted electronically I realize that's a question of timing but if it is live streamed you could allow for comments on hearings such as this from folks who couldn't get to the meeting and I think in the day and age that we live in with regards to electronic submissions electronic meetings that I think it would be a way to allow for certain members of the public who couldn't attend to be able to participate and to provide their comments um electronically my third foryear consideration is a repeat of many meetings I would ask that you consider getting a Podium for the public to speak because as you know it's very intimidating to come up here and to be able to talk and feel comfortable and for all the public that's going to be coming up I suspect if they can tonight one of the ways of doing that would be to allow them to have a place where they could put their papers and feel comfortable and be able to tell you all the important things about a matter and so I would just simply renew that request and hope that in the future we might find ourselves with a Podium thank you for your consideration thank you [Music] good evening Maria janasik 720 East fck Avenue Manville New Jersey I'm also a Hillsboro Township property owner block 86 lot 3 2155 camplan Road um in regard to the consideration of the meeting minutes why does it take so long to get minutes from prior meetings you have uh meetings from May June July why does it take so long to get the uh the minutes from these meetings there's a lot well you wanted to answer Mr Co I was just going to say I know there's a review process so yeah Mr chairman I I could answer that uh I am happy to report that we're currently up to dat uh we did fall behind from some of the uh minutes uh as you may recall and a lot of people in this room may recall we have a lot of very complex applications and we have a lot of these meetings go two and a half three plus hours so it does take some time for our staff to listen to the meeting and to get the minutes done but we are working to get them done in a more timely manner and again happy to report that we're currently up to date with the exception of everything we're saying right now as these minutes are not yet done thank you uh also there are two applications before this board um that the township was purchasing the property of those applicants uh have those applications been um withdrawn or are they still still uh um before the planning board one is for jmj for ail LLC and I don't have the name of the other one but both those properties were supposed to be bought by the township have they been uh so that they could be the applications could be withdrawn are they withdrawn one of them is on the agenda for next week relative to that issue and we're in extinction I don't know the status of 1170 both are both are okay I'm sorry they're both on the agenda next week to be addressed both of those applications are on next week's agenda so the township hasn't bought the properties yet all right thank you yep anyone else okay see Noone we're going to move on to our applications first up is Morton Street realy company with a dash with a file number of- file 23- pb-1 dsv with the time of decision of September 30th of this month it's block one block 67 lot one otherwise or commonly known as 2320 camplan Road and 10 camplan Road and the applicant is Seeking a minor subdivision approval SE bulk variances and waivers to subdivide 3.52 acres into two lots proposed lot 1. 1 to be 2.5 to2 acres and will contain an existing 1957 ft building with Associated site improvements and then proposed lot 1.02 to be 1.006 acres and it will contain an existing 6,000 2 square fet building and Associate site improvements on the property and they are located in the i1 light Industrial District uh with Frontage on Route 206 uh following the I2 zoning standard so with that I will allow the attorney for the applicant to introduce himself thank you Mr chairman my name is Ed purcel I'm an attorney with price me Schulman and de Mino uh here tonight on behalf of Morton Street realy uh before we get into it just um from Mr Bin's perspective are we okay from notice in jurisdiction yes okay so uh as the Mr chairman uh very succinctly put we're here for minor subdivision approval with variance relief to permit the subdivision of block 67 lot one of the Township tax map so that's a 3.5 acre lot and just to talk a little bit about the history here uh Morton Street had owned this has owned this property since you know over 50 years and while it is one lot it really operates as two lots there are two commercial buildings one on each lot um and each have their own parking areas so for the amount of time that those buildings have been around and on one lot they really have operated um as two lots so what we're seeking to do is take that practical reality and turn it into a a legal reality and Morton Street seeks to do that to obtain some Financial flexibility with respect to the prop property uh most of the bulk variances which we need are pre-existing uh we we've you know asked for those variances and we'll put the proofs to obtain them um I'll just note there is an impervious coverage issue for proposed lot 1.02 that's the easterly lot so that impervious coverage there is going to be at 65.3% where 60% is the maximum uh Mr Styers our engineer is going to discuss that unfortunately we're not able to you know remove that amount of impervious coverage due to concerns about circulation and parking the applicant would agree however to a deed restriction that would prevent any more improv coverage to be added to that lot to lot 1.02 and only allow increases on lot 01 to the extent that same would not exceed the 60% maximum for both of those properties together so I just mention that now Mr Styers is going to talk about it I just want to wanted to flag that um I know you have another agenda another item on the agenda tonight so we'll try to keep this brief and to the point so with that we have two witnesses for engineering we have David Styers and for planning uh John take ta tyina um Dave you ready to [Music] go truth the truth truth I do Dave Styers s s Dave can you go over your your educational history your professional background sure uh I graduated from Lehi University 1985 with a Bachelor of Science in uh civil engineering received my engineering degree or professional license in 1990 uh I worked for a family business for 30 years in Somerville uh running that company for the last 15 years and then started my own company in 2003 and have been running that ever since uh I do land use uh development and uh surveying work and environmental work in the uh basically in the Somerset County area and I've testified before this board not that often uh but I have okay so you've been accepted as an expert engineering and other land use matters yes I have okay Mr chairman i' I'd ask that Mr styes be accepted as an expert engineer okay any objections from the board okay see none we accept please proceed thank you so Mr Styers uh youve prepared the minor subdivision plan dated February 27th 2023 and last revised April 4th 2024 which was submitted to the township is that right yes I did yes okay could you go over the subject property maybe use that plan sure so uh the plant the property has Frontage on three uh separate uh roads old clamp Camp lane road on the south new camp lane road on the North and Route 206 on the West uh or the left of the paper so the plan itself North is facing uh directly up uh there's the 19,500 Ft building on the west side of the property and a 6,000 square ft building on the East portion of the property uh there's some 50 parking spaces to the uh west of the larger building with circulation between the two Camp Lane roads uh I have seen for example a FedEx truck come in and drop off it was actually a tractor trailer truck come in from the north and and exit through the South so circulation uh works well given the fact that they do have two driveways uh for that property uh and then there are three tenants in that particular building uh the interesting or the kind of thing that makes this subdivision not so clean is that there is a loading dock on the east side of that building uh so that we would need a um an agreement between the two properties to provide for the loading and unloading to that uh loading dock on the uh again the east side of the subject building the the second building uh to the east is the 6,000 foot building and that has two access points basically uh loading and unloading work in a counterclockwise Direction they come in on the western driveway and exit through the Eastern driveway uh again the uh loading to the larger building they would come in the west side pull in behind the smaller building and then back into to the loading dock on the larger building and then there's also a loading platform behind the 6,000 foot building so you would proceed down uh the Eastern Drive and then back into that uh driveway and that facility has unmarked parking but for about 15 or 15 parking spaces or so with respect to for purpose of the record we're going to mark this is A1 okay date on this Mr Styers is you want me to do that now no you have to do it I'm just for the per you can do it at the end okay date and the author of this document is uh it's it's my firm Donald uh David styr Associates and the date uh the latest revision was 4424 thank you um Mr Cyrus can you go over the existing uses on the property yes so the um again the Western building which is the larger building has three tenants lnl flooring is on the Northern side of that uh uh building that is the northern tenant uh and they are uh Lumber Liquidators the Center building and and what they have they have an outlet store with accessory storage uh which is permitted under the ordinance this the Center building or Center tenant is the Arc of Somerset they have offices for adult daycare services of developmentally disabled again that is a permitted uh use in the in the ordinance and then the Southern tenant is the bridge just stop right there for a second the of those entities the first the first one was LL flooring right correct and the second one was Bridgewater Volvo so that's the offices and Associate storage no the The Arc of Somerset is the center okay Center building and then the last one is Bridgewater Volvo the yeah the third or the southernmost is Bridgewater Volvo they have offices and Associated accessory storage again permitted by ordinance okay now go to the other building if you would mind okay that has a single tenant which is the above all Party Rentals now they rent uh tents and and then supplies for parties Etc and basically uh they're considered a contractor facility again permitted by by ordinance and could you go over the the fencing on the property sure so uh behind or to the south of the smaller building or the uh proposed lot 1.02 are two uh single family houses and there is a picket fence that runs from New Camp Lane Road uh and runs parallel and on the subject property about 20 feet into the into uh the property and very near the back of uh the larger building and then it it uh turns towards the uh East beyond the actual property line and runs along the two Residential Properties but again on the on the subject property and a bit north of the two Residential Properties until it reaches uh kind of the East End of uh that second lot where it then then encroaches onto the residential property uh we believe that fence uh is the is owned by the applicant the uh bad side or the of the pi picket fence is the unfinished side The Unfinished side is facing towards uh the subject property and the Finish side is facing the two Residential Properties and as far as the the properties that it it goes on to that aren't the subject property that's lot three and three and four is that that correct that's correct okay or two and three yes okay two and three two and three and applicant would stipulate to um remove that portion of the fence which is on the adjacent property and or um obtain a license from the property owners to keep the fence there is that is that right that's correct okay can you talk about parking yes the uh the larger building on the west side has parking for uh 40 parking spaces where 39 are required by ordinance um so it it it complies with the ordinance and um there's handicap spaces Etc and um the the uh Eastern uh building as I indicated they're not formal parking spaces but your board engineer has requested that we stripe that uh with with formal spaces of I i' I've gone through the process of laying that out we can install the 10 spaces that are required with the one Ada space and and we would agree to that condition uh if this is accepted this this application could you just go over the loading areas one more time just to yeah again the uh the Western uh building there is one loading dock for the one tenant in the rear and again as I indicated earlier there are um pickups and drop offs by larger vehicles uh in that parking uh parking field on the west side of the larger building uh like I said the FedEx truck came in from the north he pulled in U took the packages out while I was there ran into one of the building or one of the tenants and then drove out the South End um and then the um the uh above all Party Rentals they have a loading area on the uh on the rear of the building and they also have an overhead door where they um you know some of of the equipment and the tents and Etc are stored inside that building now could you just go over the the size of the two proposed Lots lot 1.01 and 1.02 yeah this 2 and a half acre lot on the western lot uh with a large green area along Route 206 and then the uh lot 1.02 is basically a 1 acre lot which is what is required by ordinance uh along uh Old Camp Lane Road can we uh talk about impervious coverage sure so right now the the uh overall coverage uh is at 45% for the existing lot um as a result of the subdivision lot 1.02 would exceed the allowable of 60% and it comes in at uh 65.3% coverage which is roughly 2500 square foot over what is allowed in the ordinance now would it be possible to remove that amount from lot propos lot 1.02 yeah we we looked into it uh the board engineer actually had a concept plan where he had presented to us um roughly a 2500 square foot removal U we're concerned with the circulation for the larger wheel wheel vehicles coming in from the Western driveway and circulating throughout to the Eastern driveway um so we would like to agree to taking out on the Eastern driveway there's a like a triangular area of Dead Space of 400 square fet we would agree to remove that and then um as Mr purcel said uh we were um we would like to offer up the deed restriction where that you know combined those two lots would not exceed the 60% allowed in the in the zone okay and then so we'd also agree that with respect to l102 that there would be no additional impervious coverage added to that lot correct that's correct and then taken together you could add more to lot 1.01 but not enough that both together would exceed 60% that's correct okay um so can you discuss what the purpose of the subdivision is the purposes of the subdivision is to give the applicant the flexibility for finance purposes you know s sell one building keep one building whatever um uh I'm I'm dealing with a project just like this in Ron and and uh the financing because of the different uses becomes complicated and especially with two buildings so the fact of creating two principal structures on individual lots makes a lot of sense from that standpoint and could you go over the zoning and if we need any variances yes um so as indicated earlier the Township Code provides that the uh the property fronting on Route 206 must conform to the I2 standards which has L larger width requirement larger front yard setback and larger rear yard setbacks um so proposed lot 1.01 which is on the 206 side uh they will have the one I I2 standards and um so the variances uh with respect to proposed lot 1.01 uh the minimum front yard setback where 75 ft is required we're proposing 54.6 and that's the and that's a set back off a new camplan road is that is that right that is yes [Music] uh minimum sidey yard setback where 50 is required and 26.3 is proposed uh that's the new lot line that runs uh north and south from the back of the uh residential lot two up to uh Old Camp lane road so that setback is um [Music] 26.3 okay and with respect to proposed lot 1.02 yeah the minimum lot depth uh where 200 is required uh 192 is proposed um the board engineer had uh I believe he had 172 on that um and I took a look at it the definition is a little bit confusing it says run a parallel line along the frontage to the midpoint of the rear yard and the way I measured it it was 18 to and what I would suggest to the board is let us come up with the right number uh working with the board engineer so that we don't come in and ask for 182 in the resolution says it's 182 and it's really 172 so I'm just confused with the definition a little bit and and I'd like to get it right it's it's between 172 and 192 okay respect to The Improv coverage yeah the on the um lot 1.02 the maximum lot coverage is uh allowed is 60% 65.3 is proposed we do uh propose to reduce that by 400 square feet or so uh so that will be a little bit less okay and then could you go over the applicable design standards yeah the um let me just see where they [Music] are under [Music] A1 um the the the the buffer area um on the i1 Zone uh requires a 20 foot buffer around loading and trash collection points visible from Ab budding residents or residential Zone districts we believe that the uh the areas for lot 1.02 comply there is a dumpster uh an existing dumpster on new camp lane road down by the entrance and uh we would either ask for a waiver or have to move that dumpster more into internally uh on that parking area somewhere north of that um driveway in order to comply with that that requirement and the other thing is with respect to um that particular language in 18816 e4a about buffering um there is a I believe an interpretation that it also requires a buffer for that really the entire Southern property line or most of the Southern property line um of Lot 1 .01 and then the entire Southern property line of lot 1.02 um I know that was uh discussed by Mr Mayhew is that something that um we comply with and if we don't would the applicant request a waiver from that well the yeah we looked at where the loading uh with the exception of the one I just discussed on lot 1.01 the other loading or the dumpster areas are actually measured where the where the dumpster locations are and they do exceed the 20 ft so it's just the one that is at issue okay um and then with respect to the curbing requirements yeah we would again as indicated this uh facility was developed in the in the 70s it's over 50 years old curbing was not required and we would ask for a waiver from installing Curbing and it would cause challenges relative to uh runoff by Chang in the grades behind the uh the parking L areas and then the uh having a formalized dumpster area that's required by the checklist yeah again you know as indicated the the development is 50 years old and the the dumpsters are uh with the exception of the one that we can relocate they're internal to lot 1.02 uh not visible from the roadway or the neighbors and we would ask for the waiver okay so we can comply with that requirement with respect to lot 1.01 but request a waiver with respect to lot 1.02 right yes okay and has the applicant received any other approvals for the subject application yes we actually received all outstanding approvals uh that are required to date NJ do has issued a subdivision access permit uh the County planning board has approved it Soil Conservation has indicated that we are exempt and drcc Delaware and R Canal Commission hased approved it okay um have you reviewed Mr mayhew's August 16th 2024 engineering report yes I have all right can we just go over it uh we'll just use Mr ta's response dated August 30th and wherever we um agree or don't need to provide a comment we'll just we'll just skip that all right yeah so under item one we I just indicated that there's a little bit of a interpretation on the um the lot depth and I would just like to review that with the board engineer so that we're on the same page the lot depth for lot 1.02 is between 172 and 192 based on the three interpretations and and I just want to agree to get that right as we uh get towards the uh the resolution um so comment number two minimum front yard and Zone I2 is 755 ft table should clarify existing front yard on New camplan Road is only 54.6 and requires variance correct so that was requested and yes and we're existing condition and we'll that will continue correct yes okay uh comment number three minimum sidey yard setback of 50 ft required in zone I2 where is only 26.3 ft is existing for building the proposed lot 1.01 requires variance and what's response to that that is an existing condition that will continue okay um we'll skip four 56 and seven um with respect to proposed variance um comment one minimum lot width required in zone I2 of 300 feet 27.8 feet is reported for lot 1.01 with shall be clarified it appears over 300 feet is provided and we will revise the plan accordingly okay so the lot with you know 30 9.77 so we're compant with that yes right okay um skip number two number three existing non-conforming minimum site or setback were 50 ft required in zone I2 whereas 26.3 fet is provided for the existing building on the proposed Lot 1.01 C number three above proposed subdivision would increase extent of non-conformance by adding a property line yes and the applicant is Seeking a variance to continue the existing 26.3 foot nonconformity okay um existing non-conforming comment number four existing non-conforming minimum lot depth where 2200 fet is required 192 is reported for lot 1.02 Dimension shall be clarified it appears only 172 fee is provided that's that's the same thing I've been talking about I would like to just get that right with the the board engineer okay [Music] um maximum previous coverage is 60% permitted where is 6 this is comment number five maximum impervious coverage of 60% permitted whereas 65.3% is reported for proposed lot 1.02 applicant shall revise the impervious coverage form and order the subdivision plan to address to address the discrepancy and proposed impervious coverage reported between form and plan I think that has been done yeah correct um the rest of this has to do with the Ence coverage which we just discussed so we'll skip that uh next is yeah we already went over that over zoning we'll talk about General comments uh number one proposed lot 1.01 has an existing fence that is shown to continue onto proposed lot 1.02 but we discussed that as well um oh here's for comment number two under General comment we recommend the applicant identify waste disposed facility locations on site with appropriate buffering um I I think we um partially agree they they're shown on the plan with the setbacks uh there's three uh dumpsters located on lot 1.02 and then the one out on the driveway uh for 1.01 okay uh comment three as per section 188 106 e4a for oh you know what we talked about that as well um go to commment number four based on applicant correspondence it is our understanding that 9,840 square fet and 4,400 square feet of space proposed on lots 1.01 and 1.02 respectively as for storage purposes the parking shall be revised to State same okay there's a small discrepancy between the the plan and the um the sheet that were provided to Hillsboro and the discrepancy has to do with the property record cards have one number and the building footprint was slightly different than the property record cards and when we went to do they had us adjust the parking to the actual building footprint which was a whatever 50 square foot difference so that that's the discrepancy and we'll get that cleaned up okay uh with respect to we skin number five comment number six required loading spaces per 18886 shall be calculated for each lot and depicted or a waiver requested yeah the each lot requires one loading dock and each lot has a uh loading area Okay um we will skip to comment nine the applicant shall clarify if there is any existing storm water management Bas and present on the site no I think the uh the development predated storm water management so uh as far as we can see there's no there is one pipe that runs uh behind lot 1.02 out to a stream towards the uh East okay uh we suggest the comment number 10 we suggest the board consider requiring removal of existing Paving encroaching onto block 67 Lot 4 um what's applicant's response to that to the extent that the adjacent owner agrees uh to the removal we will remove that uh payment okay comment number 11 storm water drainage shall be clarified along the proposed lot lines between lots 1.01 and 1.02 to to determine if one or two drainage easements will be required easements will be mutual access and drainage I spoke to uh the board engineer on this the the water the runoff basically goes west to east so the easement would be required on lot 1.02 and we talked about a a blanket easement basically not uh prohibiting that flow of runoff from 1.01 onto 1.02 and we will include that language in the uh overall description and then we're also going to provide an an access easement correct for lot um for lot 1.01 use of lot 1.02 for the um for the loading Bay yes right all right uh comment number 12 to Wetland areas are shown on the plans areas are reported as shown pair of the njd Geo web no site investigation or lineation has been submitted if Wetland areas exist as shown and are of ordinary value a 50ft wide buffer transition area would be required by the njde portions of existing Paving exist with within the potential njd buffer to the extent the D permits are required and the applicant will obtain them okay um go moving on Subdivision plat comments um we'll skip we'll go to number three the applicant shall clarify if the subdivision shall be perfect Ed by deed or plat we would prefer filing it by deed since it's a minor subdivision uh comment number four the boundary line of any easement shall be monumented and its intersection with all existing or proposed Street lines such easement dedication shall be expressed on the plat as follows easement granted to the township of Hillsboro as provided for in the development regulation ordinance of the township of Hillsboro as per section 188 45d of the township ordinance we don't believe that there are any easements required to the township of Hillsboro uh the storm water easement that we talked about would be a blanket easement on 1.02 that would prohibit blockage of runoff from lot 1.01 and it would include the access uh easement that allows lot 1.01 to utilize the Drive In on lot 1.02 all right comment number five applicant has stated that an Access season shall be provided to the owner of lot 1.01 to cross lot 1.02 for loaning area access ACC on the east side of l101 applicant shall submit the required easement with meets and bound subscriptions and depict same on plan again that would be a blanket easement uh and and we will provide that to the board's attorney and and Professionals for review and then last comment is we number six we recommend that the applicant add a title block to the final plat of subdivision including a signature block for certification by the chairman and Secretary of the approving Authority and the County planning board is same as being filed uh again we would prefer filing by De okay all right um have Mr um Mr Styers have you reviewed Mr qu August 9th 2024 planning report yes I have and do you have any responses to that report the only comment is the um again the the uh lot WID for 1.01 uh will correct that to 309.28 and eliminate the need for that variance okay um that's all I have for Mr Styers thank you Mr [Music] Mayu thank you Mr chairman um I'm going to reference our office letter the applicants been discussing uh dated August 16 2024 and I think it's worth discussing uh four or five items that I'm not sure uh our office would uh agree with the applicant's uh response the first would be more of a a way to facilitate the evening uh under proposed variances um where a lot minimum lot depth of 200's required and the applicant has reported it's 192 ft our office thinks it's 170 two my suggestion if the board wants to move forward tonight is to Grant the waiver 492 ft and uh if in conversations with David Co we come up with a different number then that could be put on to the record but I don't see any negative in granting the waiver up to the 192 at this point the applicant would be okay with that um the next item is impervious cover um I understand the applicants stated that they don't believe enough payment could be removed um we received today a color rendering of the site which is what's shown up on these boards and I would point out that approximately 2500 square ft of impervious cover would need to be removed to meet the 60% limit uh I would point out that lot 102 has 2490 ft of gravel Paving um the gravel Paving is shown there different gray shade right here it's in the rear 102 and there's a thin strip along the eastern border of 102 I would point out that the gray gravel in the rear of lot 102 is uh majority of it's within the 20 foot buffer area uh um I understand the applicants testified that they agreed there would be a small triangle of about 400 square ft that could be removed I I can help the board understand where that is that's uh up at the entrance on the Eastern driveway you'll notice that the driveway widens significantly and to the point at the front corner of the building the Ain is suggesting taking a triangle payment off of there so they really only need 2100 more square feet of payment to meet the 60% I've shared with the applicant and I um and with David there are other opportunities on this site and as I said even the just taking the gravel off gets you where you need to go the other obvious area I know so we would we would agree to take that gravel off that's what you're saying we didn't you know that wasn't a suggestion that we had discussed previously we know we had talked about other portions but between we would take that 4 100 ft off of the um near nearest Old camplan Road and we would agree to remove that gravel portion and I think that gets you where you need to be okay good thank you the um next item that I wanted to discuss is the buffer um the sketch plan that came in today does show a 20 foot buffer um running along the rear of lot 102 which is the right hand property and then it extends along the eastern border of lot 101 it's really tough to see it but sketch that came in today shows that require 20ft buffer running along the rear 102 and then running along the east of 101 uh our review letter stated that since the property acrossed new camplain road is zoned ra that also requires a buffer so this 20 foot would have to to extend up into this point right here because this corner lot's not ra um is there any reason that the plan wouldn't be revised to also show that 20 foot with respect to the the 20 feet that are on that's directly on Old camplan Road I think we would I mean new camp new Camp Road I think we would request a a waiver with respect to that portion of it the other portion of it um that is the I guess it would be the um southernly s side of lot 1.02 um I think obviously we can comply there um you know the 20ft buffer on the going down between uh the adjoining lots and the building on lot point11 is that are we compliant with that Dave we're basically following the fence line at that point so well I I guess I want to clarify there's two issues here one showing the required buffer on the plan M and then two asking for a waiver if you don't provide the criteria to meet that buffer so one we provide We Will We Will revise the plan to show the required buffer so you'll add that buffer along New camplan Road that's opposite the ra District We'll add that correct okay uh I leave it to the applicant in the board to discuss whether any of these buffers are satisfactory as they are now now or if the applicants right at this point the applicant is not proposing any additional Landscaping our office defers that discussion to between the applicant in the board I just wanted to clarify where the buffer is required thank you um the next item was the storm water I just want to clarify for the board lot one2 especially in the loading area um drains towards the adjoining property and we want to make sure and I think the opin agreed to provide some kind of description of a easement so that the future owner of lot 102 doesn't block I mean you could see 10 20 years from now someone blocking that drainage accidentally or even we want to make sure that that's covered and the same thing with access um we would agree to that and then lastly I would just suggest to the board that they consider the the dumpster issue I know there's there's several waivers requested and it is an old site um and many of it was built before a lot of design criteria but it may not be difficult to properly address some of the trash which are just dumpsters on the edge of the parking lot there there may be some opportunities to add the appropriate trash dispos osal area with with appropriate landscaping and I'll leave that to the board and to [Music] decide thank you Mr chairman thank you Mr chairman uh Mr may you adequately addressed a number of concerns and I am left with with nothing to ask further thank you okay thank you okay board members questions could could I ask a question on the southernmost part of that big building there's two driveways that come off of camplan road that just end at a walkway what are those for they were um loading loading driveways to garage doors that are not currently utilized so that's impervious that's basically just used for for is it being utilized for anything right now than just black top uh the one dumpster that we're relocating is currently in one of those drives but no so is that where you tend to keep a dumpster possibly or relocate or make a proper enclosure in one of those and have it f in could that would eliminate the need for reducing the parking count I mean we could we could keep it where it is or we could you know we we're suggesting moving it right adjacent to that correct right whoever the board prefers if you know the board wishes us to keep it where it is the where where is it now I'm sorry we lost the plan in there but for The Bu it's in the uh Western most drive into that garage door [Music] okay we're could they make a Mr Mio could they make a proper trash enclosure utilizing one of those those driveways there you that's I don't know if that's actually that they have a it is but when we're talking about the there there it is so here's the dumpster we're discussing right well and this driveway your testifying is not being utilized at this time that's correct so that dumpster could be Lo relocated farther in out of the buffer could have appropriate screening around it and just for the purposes of this video um screen it could be moved back where this car is and this car would move up here you lose one space accessing the dumpster or we'll just use the driveway or they come straight in the driveway straight up turn it we could shift we could turn the the dumpster so it's opens up well then you have the trash truck pulling in and pulling back out onto the road having the movement occur in the parking lot would be safer and then also Mr chairman there may be also uh fire access concerns as well to consider so well I'm just trying to get a better way to so we don't see a dumpster right to have en closed with a proper buffer and um have it look more tidy [Music] all right so we would I think what we would certainly agree to as far as locationally to move it you know up that drive and then have the the access to it by um a dump truck or you know whoever needs to to grab it um be by way of the parking area so we would stripe out one of those um parking spaces all right you work with Mr mahu on that plan and address it with proper buffering and trees Etc and Evergreens to hide it I mean as far as the you know buffering obviously you know that's a there is impervious coverage there it's an existing condition um it's been like this Le least put a fence up so you don't see it on the sides [Music] I think at this point you know the applicant would prefer to not do that given the fact that then it would you know for for for future purposes if that were ever to be become usable um it would inhibit the ability of the the owner to use that door that drive so it's still an active door is what you're saying not right now but in the future someone if someone were to want to use it so we can we can move the the dumpster North in the parking lot take out one space it right now we've shown it to take one space out we'll add that space back move it further to the north and put some fencing around it to buffer it okay with that I I I think it just moves it away from the street and makes it look okay so we'll say we're going to move it within the within the driveway okay fine [Music] um so uh just to be clear you plan on keep the Ling dock behind the of that building and you're going to get a grant an easement for that use for future yes right okay um and is there anything planned I didn't notice any other plantings being proposed as far as any other buffering between the two properties the residential ones and the you know say where that stone is being removed well you you have the uh picket fence between the stone and the houses okay so that's how is that like a 6ot fence 6ot solid fence that's currently there okay all I got for now thank you anyone else uh yes sir I yes you mentioned parking before on the proposed lot 1.02 and parking is not depicted on the site plan that we have right now and you mentioned that you would stripe for parking where would the parking be there would be five spaces on the west side of the building including 18 188 spot and five spaces on the east side of the building so you and you would still have a 25t drive aisle on the on for example on the west side west of the parking spaces you would still have a 25- foot Drive aisle and then on the east side east of the parking spaces you would again have a 25t drive AIS so you would have the park working uh that would conform to the township ordinance and on the the building would they be uh closer to the North corners of the buildings or the South corners of the buildings they basically could go from the north to the South okay it's it's you know you need 45 ft for 9 foot spaces and the building I believe is 50 feet all right very good thank you any other questions from the board okay then I will ask for a motion open to public all moved second all in favor I I I okay if there's anyone from the public that would like to question this witness on his testimony please feel free to come up and state your name and address for the record it okay I see no takers huh I don't know why change it every time okay all right all right all was so it's the colored rendering with a new date but it's the same plan [Music] okay um all right we'll call Mr tyina to provide planning testimony testimony truth I do my name is John tyina T is and Thomas AI is and Kelly I and is and Nancy a i a licensed planner in the state of New Jersey I have been since I completed my studies at Ruckers University in 1992 I've had the pleasure of keeping my license in good standing for the last 32 years they told me that was the challenge um my license is current in good standing um early in my career I did Municipal and County Planning uh including authoring land use ordance l Good Stuff uh but most of the time I do this I testify on behalf of applicants uh throughout the state and around the country on land use matters uh large and small and um I have never appeared before the Hillsboro planning board I have appeared before your zoning board um and other towns throughout Somerset County so Mr chairman I'd ask Mr taen to be accepted as an expert planner okay any objections saying none we accept thank you continue um so I am uh I am not you know Dave kind of stole all my thunder I have nothing left to say um I'm down to uh literally uh bulk variances to uh kind of continue existing conditions um we have a front yard setback of 54.6 feet on lot 1.01 that we are proposing to retain that will be a C1 variance a unique property condition affecting this specific property um removing that uh removing building uh to provide a compliance effect would be a hardship to the applicant and we believe this we satisfy the standard for a C1 variance uh likewise the minimum sidey yard setback uh is 26.3 feet that is an existing condition uh that we are continuing um the extension of the uh of the lot line um is greater than 26.3 feet so the 26.3 feet that exists is the uh is the variance condition and that is existing condition again uh that we would seek to continue as a C1 variance and then finally um we will have the minimum lot depth um discussion uh at 192 ft uh for lot 1.02 um that again would be a a C2 a C1 variance uh there's no additional land to be accommodated uh to um acquired excuse me to uh provide for to eliminate that variance uh that is not a variance that is exacerbated by the uh nature of the subdivision it is one uh that exists in the existing condition and again uh providing for additional land uh would be a hardship um in this instance because we meet the criteria for the C1 variances that is our uh the satisfaction of our positive criteria in terms of our negative criteria uh that as you know there are two standards one is that were're not a substantial detriment to public good and secondly that were not a substantial impairment to the Zone plan and the master plan in terms of the public good um these aren't oxis uses they're uses that have been in the community uh buildings that have been in the community for 50 years uh going through the process I've actually learned the entire history of them dating back to 1969 in 1971 um it was actually relatively fascinating frankly um but uh they have been here uh for more than 50 years um they've existed in the conditions that you see them um they're certainly not a detriment uh to the surrounding area in any way shape or form and providing for the subdivision will not provide any detriment as well um secondly uh we have a um the intent to uh that we're not impairing the intent and purpose of the master plan or the Zone plan uh your L your uh land use and development ordinance your statements of purpose uh basically mirror the municipal land use law um and again we uh we are satisfying some of those by providing sufficient space and appropriate locations um additionally we're encouraging the coordination of various public and private procedures um shaping Land Development with a view towards lessening the cost of that development to the efficient use of the land again we think that uh maintaining the existing conditions as they are uh would be appropriate given their long-standing history in town uh we think that uh there will not be any detriment um and uh that we have managed to uh satisfy all the various uh contingencies affecting this whether they be um whether they be the drcc the county uh soil erosion uh and even NJ NJ doot and uh we got an NJ doot permit in less than a year that's unheard of that's unheard of um and we were able to do that so um when they Mr Styer said that we we we made sure we match what they asked for that's why they were they were ready to they were ready to sign uh and that's why we did it so um coordinating all those different agencies is is a challenge uh for every applicant and uh I think we've been able to to kind of meet all of our different Masters here uh and then finally in terms of your master plan uh your examination in 2018 actually has several references directly to the i1 and I2 zones and the adjacent residential to the South to be rezoned actually at a residential having the smaller lot in the rear adjacent to the residential and additionally with our uh with our um deed restriction that we're proposing uh that limits us uh to the uh 60% coverage on the combin 3.5 Acres or approximately uh 92,000 ft of of ovious coverage uh will further limit development of the site and keep it to the scale that does not negatively impact our adjoining residential uses the front lot meets the higher standard of the I2 under the ordinance uh requiring Lots along 206 to meet that and uh and we do so so I think that we uh we mesh nicely with the m recommendation and we're certainly not impairing them in any way in terms of our design standards um the board is permitted to Grant the design standards when the little enforcement uh will be impractical or somewhat of a hardship uh so we think it's appropriate that we can designate the the buffer zones and indicate where they are um but we believe that uh for that short stretch along new Clan road that would be appropriate to keep the existing condition we we do have fairly good Landscaping on the west side of the site but keep the existing condition with just the lawn in between the two loading driveways uh we think that that's appropriate it's actually the condition that was approved by the zoning Board in 1971 um but we think it's appropriate we'll move the dumpster out of the buffer and into the parking lot uh with a fence around it to give us a little bit better screening there but maintaining the rest of that condition we think would be appropriate um and uh and certainly not um not impair uh not be any detriment to anyone um in terms of uh trash collection Etc Again by relocating the one that's visible we think we're uh definitely meeting the intent the ordinance the rest of them are uh kind of settled back into that uh rear yard area on 1.02 uh it is fairly well uh vegetated there I wouldn't call it landscaped it's it's well vegetated with existent trees there is a six foot fence there um that uh that screens any views of the of the dumpsters they're very small they're uh you know little three and four yarders um so we think that uh that that is appropriate there and certainly uh no detriment to our neighbors uh the rest of the um the only other one is really the Curbing and as Mr sty testified uh providing curv on all these parking lots would be a hardship not only the expense of the curbing but it would change the existing drainage patterns which actually um you know everything old is New Again the the new the new storm water now wants these dis disconnected drainage patterns they want the parking lots to be able to flow off into adjacent green areas and we think that maintaining that that existing condition uh is a better is a better plan that would be uh putting in uh putting in the curbs and it would that would be unduly burdensome on the applicant uh so I believe for these reasons the board has the ability to Grant the relief requested and I'm available for your questions okay you I don't know I I'm looking at May here I'm going Co than you I have no comments Mr chairman thank you I also have no uh no questions for Mr teina thank you thank the assisted planer comments I have no comments thank you chair thank you your first one Eric anything okay so we are open the public or do I have to reopen board first and then that's right see no one's got comments I already have open it to the public okay so we're open to public or do I have to take another role okay so are there anyone from the public that would like to there we go knew there'd be a comment well you didn't have a comment last time so I'll be very brief David Brook Winding Way the area where the gravel is being taken out I don't know the lot area is is that going to be vegetated uh as the planter yes and is it Landscaping planting or just grass just grass I would ask that trees be planted or some other veget ation uh Mr chairman simply because it is adjacent to a residential lot and it would be nice to have something more than grass as a uh further way of providing shielding thank you yeah it's it's a certainly a fenced in area there behind that parcel um you know I think the applicant would prefer it to be grass okay any other comments or question comment wow any questions for this witness on his testimony see none I'm going to entertain a motion to close to public no not unless the public wants an overall comment on the that's true okay thank you open it up for the public for last last okay do I have to do a roll on that one okay so we are still open so this is the last bite at the Apple before we make a decision on application so if anyone wants to come up and provide their thoughts one way or the other okay this motion now we'll have a motion to close to public so moved second Mr scobo had the second all in favor I I okay um I just have a couple comments and would you like me my closing M Mr chairman okay please um so with respect to the lot depth issue for lot 1.02 I know there was a bit of a discussion is it 172 ft is at 19 192 feet so I think maybe the way to approach it uh from what Mr Mayu was saying is maybe we could request an approval for 172 and then um and then to the extent we determine that it's less than that we can modif you know we can modify it or if it's more than that I'm sorry if it's more than that we can modify it but just to ask for the the the larger amount or the lesser amount by way of the approval and then if it turns out that based on the analysis it's it's um more than that then we can certainly there can be something on the record to advise the board of that and the um and the resolution can reflect that um with respect to do is it okay with you Mr Mayu Mr pcel how are you going to Mark the record if it turns out to be more than 172 without coming back to this board well I guess I guess what I could say is is it's a good comment Mr Bernstein um I think we could well you're you we could certainly we could certainly we could certainly try to revise the well you know what let's just get 172 let's just fall for 172 our office would agree with that you're asking for a 28 feet yeah of waiver yeah and and Mr Bernstein if it turns out between Mr Ko's office and our office we determine that they only needed 20 that's just less of a waiver and I I don't think that would be an issue at that I guess if it's more if it's more then we'll have to come back wouldn't or if it's it's not going to be more right we're agreeing to request what your what Your engineer has stated which is that only 172 ft is provided therefore you're 28 ft short and that's the waiver you're requesting that's the waiver our office would suggest to board consider and if Mr Co in our office determines it was a little less and so be it and the resolution is going to reflect that that determination is being made in conjunction between the board planner and the board engineer and that and that's acceptable from the applicants perspective um with respect to the um impervious coverage um again we would accept you know we would be okay with removing the gravel and then the 400 sare F feet up up on top of near Old camplain Road so just to clarify you're going to meet the 60% correct correct thank you and then we would uh agree to you know move the dumpster um from where it is adjacent to New camplan Road um to to to the interior portion um of of the property along the in the driveway and you would agree to screen the relocated defense it defense it correct um okay so I just wanted to make sure sure we're all on the same page with respect to those items uh but as Mr taen said and as I said at the beginning you know we're asking for a subdivision here to make a legal reality what is the Practical reality right now that these are two lots that operate independently of one another we're just asking for our subdivision to legally effectuate that it's been that way for 50 years uh We've shown adequate proofs for the variances that we need I think we've um given a fair bit as far as the impervious coverage issue um so certainly I think it would be appropriate for the board to to Grant this subdivision with these variance requests and waiver requests okay SP Mr chairman Mr Mayu for purposes of the record can you indicate exactly what gravel and or other impervious coverage is being [Music] removed the different color on A1 pay color rendering exhibit the gravel is shown as a darker gray at the rear of the Eastern property what will be 1.02 yes correct and the triangle area would be a piece of the asphalt paving on the Eastern driveway of the Eastern Building also on lot 1.02 correct and you believe that that's sufficient to reduce the impervious coverage um I do and if you know if it's within a few square feet short I'm sure the applicant engineering can find a couple more square feet to make it work I'm confident that the app can adjust it to be 60% the other question Mr chairman members of the board is the issue of the what's to be placed in the buffer area grass or [Music] landscaping or both can I can I ask what the the fence is owned and maintained by the applicant yes so they agree to maintain the fence throughout the two owners right even the subdivide half the fence is one owner whatever yeah I think what we've yes correct we would maintain that fence and there's a portion of it that goes onto the adjoining property and we would either obtain a license from them or just pull it back you know or pull it back if if they don't want to on their property licensing agreement would have to be provided to the town to my office for review and ultimately to the board and as far as the uh I'm looking at Google Earth here there's really there's still a lot of vegetation around that that's not depicted on the the map here so you can't even see the fence from the road that is correct so there's there's plenty of exit you know I'm a tree guy so everybody knows that so I there's you can't even see the fence so I think that there's plenty of trees to hide it so grass I think would be appropriate thank you in the absence Mr chairman of any other items from the board then the resolution is to adopt the application for Borton Street realy company file number 23- pb-1 dsv uh block 67 lot one as per on camplan Road and Old camplan Road as per the discussions originally announced by the chair as well as all waivers requested all variances requested all conditions of the parties as set forth in this hearing and the further discussion on the record after closing by Mr pcel from Mr Mayu okay so with that we have a motion to approve with the conditions laid out by Mr Bernstein and agreed obviously by the applicant I'll make that motion Mr chairman I'll second okay okay uh with that roll call please Mr Wagner yes Mr rtz yes Mr scobo yes Mr velli yes yes the pon yes Vice chair peas yes sh yes thank you very thank you good [Music] evening we are GNA have a recess according to my Verizon time it says 8:28 we'll reconvene at 8:4 40 per Verizon [Music] time thank you we're back in session so next up is Weston Road LLC with file number 22- pb-3 mspv time of decision is September 6 and this application is continued from June 6th of this year without further notice so I'm just going to let everybody introduce thems again so Mr grodnick uh good evening testing good evening members of the board um Micha grodnick savos shock Law Firm on behalf of the applicant good evening members of the board Jordan Ash with rker danig on behalf of the Hearthstone homeowners association good evening board members Mike sovich from liberman bler and sovich on behalf of hearthstone at Hillsboro homeowners association Mr chairman for purposes of the record uh I have received a certification of absent board member examination of record eligibility to vote signed by Mr Pon as to the April 4th meeting and the June 6 meeting which makes him eligible to participate in this evening's meeting I do not believe we have same for Mr Deb and Mr Vitali who I'm sure have just been sitting at home all summer long watching videos so for the purposes of the record they are sitting on the de for observation only they are not participating they cannot vote there you go turn your name plates down so it is from Mr scobo to Mr rtz tonight all right thank you Mr chairman thank [Music] you we uh when we last broke we were in the middle of uh Klay Emerson's testimony and I happy to bring him back up unless the board like to address another issue that arose before that I don't know is somebody going to mention the secret words or we just going to sort of wait um I i' just like to have uh for the record put out the last memo that was just put out by Mr Mayu uh dated uh for the record August 21st regarding the ongoing standing issue of the uh easement and how it affects the application in general and how it's uh in his opinion still in effect uh and pretty much prohibits the design of the building as it is today so I'd like to hear how it we address that uh well obviously um this there was an easement that was created for the benefit of the township uh as a result of litigation for the Township's failure to disclose a landfill that was sold on this property the easement was placed in that location at the time um by the by the engineer who designed the site uh the site plan that was ultimately part of a settlement and um wetlands have encroached into that area so the applicants proposing a relocation uh the easement um I believe it there is a recorded easement although it's never been constructed there's potentially Le legal issues related to the abandonment of the EAS easement by the township since certain amount of time has passed um but the intent of the applicant is to relocate the easement build a roadway at significant cost to the applicant uh to allow access to the dump property um I think this ship has sailed frankly uh this board took jurisdiction deem this application complete uh we've been hearing this case for 7 935 days but who's counting what's that but who's counting yeah so um I think legally I think that this is uh you know courts courts addressed this and and it's come up quite a bit about uh jurisdiction and uh I you know land use boards you you you act within the matters that are under your jurisdiction whether it's Municipal County State um other entities in every application have uh exclusive jurisdictions over over certain portions of it for example soil inste uh you know County planning board uh has uh soil erosion and siment control plan um certain powers of approval under for for the jurisdiction of the County board for drainage for roadways um there's flood control under State statutes there's water quality and Watershed under the administrative code there's Wetlands protections act things like that so um a planning board's Authority in reviewing a s plan application is limiting to determine limited to determining whether the plan conforms with with the municipality zoning and site plan ordinances we're citing wo Goodfellows company of Turnersville Inc versus Washington Township planning board in this case the township committee has um ultimate decision-making power on whether they wish to relocate that easement um whether again there's a legal issue of whether the easements is still valid um but once this this once Mr masi deemed the application complete this board took jurisdiction um you know obviously there's fairness issues uh related to hundreds of thousands of dollars and monies expended uh to comply with recommendations from Pen's office including sound experts and environmental experts we've had every single expert uh you know well beyond a typical land use application so respectfully it's an outside agency approval it should be a condition I can't remember uh this board ever denying uh to hear an application especially after you know 930 days um based upon relocation of an easement we deal with County easements all the time there a condition of approval we deal with the pipeline all the time it's a condition of approval so uh you know it would obviously be very unfair uh for the app for the board to reverse course and refuse to hear the application moving forward it should be concluded hopefully it'll be concluded in the next few meetings um but um yeah I mean that's my legal position is that um there's legal questions about the easement potentially um we can't build an easement in the wetlands so that's that's the the engineering basis for it for the relocation so Mr chairman if I may um there is an easement the EAS is recorded um Hillsboro Township um has a property right to that easement um this planning board respectfully is its powers are derived from the municipal land use law uh it does not have the authority to compel relocation of an easement um so as to impair burden the rights of Hillsboro um it's Hillsboro Township's decision and it's it's decision alone as to whether agree to move that easement um I guess maybe a a quiet title action or something could also be filed but uh this board cannot do so um this is a significant issue I agree with Mr Mayu um that you know this changes the entire application if de seasment Can't Be Moved um and for that reason I do believe that we should deal with this issue first rather than waste any more time of this board um and uh just citing you know the main case on this issue Klein versus Bernardsville Association Incorporated 267 NJ super 473 it's an Appel division case from 1993 um just makes it clear that again as I stated before this is a property right that Hillsboro has um and the planning board respectfully isn't in a position to compel relocation um nor of course can the uh property owner the the applicant compel relocation um so I don't know what this application would look like if Hillsboro wouldn't agree to move the easement um the township committee um and I think it's an issue that needs to be addressed immediately and that's our position thank you no nobody's suggesting that this board has the authority to relocate an easement I agree with Mr covich's comments in relation to the case law that that uh has hashed that issue out in fact there's a seminal case from Hillsboro uh regarding the the movement of a of an access easement um again we the applicant has relied upon the board's completeness to determination uh and uh they've relied to their detriment and uh it's our position that this matter should be brought to a vote after all this time um I believe that the board professionals have had some quite significant escrow bills on this case uh probably in the area of over $100,000 uh so to allow an application to proceed seven and a half times past the 120-day requirement Bill $50 to $100,000 in escros and then take the position that we don't have jurisdiction chip is [Music] sailed I'm unaware in all the years I've been doing Municipal land use law that the determination of completeness in and of itself therefore prevents and planning board or a zoning board from dealing with the application before it simply because somebody says it met the checklist I will point out I first of all I'm a little fascinated cuz everybody sitting up here all the Hired Guns so to speak have had this for Two Plus weeks and I got to give you guys credit you were like silence is golden I kept waiting for somebody that I'm not that's not a response looking for I I wasn't I wasn't mail the letter I received it today as I was reviewing other emailed everybody plus weeks ago we've it's also been up on Civic clerk but the issue of whether you've determined it to be complete therefore prevents you from doing this is somewhat nonse secondly I will point out for the record that co- counil for applicant submitted a request to the township committee it appears approximately two years ago asking to relocate the infamous in question and nothing ever came of that with the township committee and as far as we can tell nothing ever occurred regarding following that up um it was look I don't think anyone here has necessarily what I would refer to as clean hands but it's there and it's in the middle of a building and the last time I looked this planning board has no Authority to condition an approval or to deal with this issue when it's outside the jurisdiction of the planning board and if you take Mr ogrodnik argument to its conclusion it would be approve the application subject to a condition that the township committee may never agree to followed by litigation and if the township committee chooses not to agree to it over and application that frankly should be addressed before the planning board makes an ultimate determination as to whether or not this application is viable if the township committee wants to agree to move its easan and I don't think there's a dispute separate and apart from Mr ogrodnik that somehow it's either disappeared because things have grown in it or that we the township has somehow given it up which it never does and if that does then we can argue that in front of Fillin the blank judge whoever that may be at this point we'll hear it but the fact of the matter is there's a letter out there that recommends to the board from the board engineer that until the easement issue is addressed the application should not go forward now it's up to the applicant tonight whether or not what it wants to do um leaving aside how many days this has been and why we've been there this is you know a broken record in that issue the time of decisions tomorrow applicant's choice is to either based on the Mayu letter take Mr mayu's recommendation and go to the township committee and see what they will do and I will point out that Mr um leani will be conflicted out at least at my opinion I leave that to Mr Willard ultimately to decide since it's a planning board application still pending and possibly the deputy mayor as well and see whether or not the Ure committee will entertain a relocation of its easement option two is that the applicant can choose not to continue the time of decision through tonight and the board can make a decision um if we get to that point I'll have some comments about all of that issue but ultimately it will either involve somebody or somebody's headed either to Somerville Flemington or badier depending on who's hearing prerogative writ matters in the Visage right now right now it seems to be Flemington um or the board can continue this application and continue to hear it with the ultimate understanding we're going to get to this point one way or the other you're either going to get to it because the applicant's going to ask you to approve the application and the easement is a condition and I'm not so sure that the planning board is any more authorized to agree to a different easement that isn't Theirs to agree to it's not the applicants easement it's not some it's it's an easement to a Township piece of property it's a Township easement and the history of this property is long known and the fact is that the applicant knew what it was buying when it bought the property and it's now here to develop it it's up to app it's up to the board it's up to the applicant it's up to the objectors and what else they want to put before you but ultimately at some point a decision has to be made this evening as to what we're doing with this application obviously I will also point out for purposes of the record that the Zoning for this property has changed since the application was filed if the application is withdrawn on there is no guarantee that the applicant will be able to come back before this board it can come back before the zoning board come back before this board seeking a warehouse application which course at the moment at least pending ongoing litigation of which this applicant is not a party to uh warehouses are no longer permitted here in Hillsboro so all of those things have to be played out my suggestion is obviously Mr grodnik wants to put anything more Mr sinkovic or Mr Ash on the record I think at this point the question is in the applicant hands why they want to go with this application tonight yes so we want to continue and I mean we've already finished our case in Chief also this is the objector case so again you know I think in in theory and this was brought up early on and you know my impression was it was a bit of a wait and see to see what the planning board does and if you approve it I would suspect although I could be wrong that the township will acques to the relocation out of the wetlands um but again I mean it this is just way too late to be making this determination that these plans were submitted uh I believe in 202 early 2022 um this issue should have been um determined perhaps in completeness uh perhaps with an owner's consent as we've talked about on these applications but after you know uh the the type of Reliance that these that this applicant has had uh I think that this application should finish on its merits we go to a vote and then and then we'll take it as an outside agency uh issue I mean I don't recall ever this board ever refusing to hear an appli because of a change in a right of way I mean we we we do this all the time with the pipeline uh we've done it with um the railway we do it constantly with utilities it's not an uncommon issue uh to have to relocate an easement to to develop land so I think it's the outside agency that has authority to approve or disapprove the relocation subject to potential litigation challenging the easement is the township committee uh and that should be a condition uh should the board approve this application just briefly I I think part of the problem is the fact that if we go forward and if if this board approves um that the township will feel that it needs to acques which I don't think is appropriate um I believe that the issue has to be resolved before vote is taken I think it has to go to the committee um and you know I re not going to reiterate what I said before I think it would be appropriate to deal with this issue now rather than waste any more of the board's time um so we can understand what the committee is going to do the township committee and um and then go from there so that's our position thank [Music] you it's funny uh I just heard applicants Council talk about the escrow money and the money that the professionals on the board have spent on this application and it's unfair to have spent it all and gotten to this point on the other hand what he is suggesting is we spend more of it um in hearing this application to potentially get to the same spot down the road so if applicant is not going to raise the issue that escro money or whatever else has gone on up to now and going forward is somehow a defense as to a decision ultimately being rendered then that's a discussion I have with the client but one of the things I'm not necessarily interested in advising the board is that if you spend another nickel on this by anybody you have somehow acquiesced into this application in this [Music] argument good Mr rtz yeah M Mr ogrodnik I just have a question for you I'm I I've looked over the documents that were submitted in the beginning with the application and if if I'm reading the the Civic Clerk's records or um listing of documents correctly the easement the deed easement was submitted with your original application package is that correct I believe that's correct and it was identified by by the board engineer at the time and I'm not blaming Mr Mayu I'm saying if the board wanted to reject jurisdiction to hear the application it can't be three years later that's not my question I I'm not going to get in the middle of whether it's reasonable not reasonable whether it's good b or and different I don't think that's really an issue right now um but my question is I don't recall seeing hearing or being submitted any plans that set forth what was going to happen with that easement it's as if we went forward with the complete application of saying yeah this is there but we're not going to address it in any other documents so my question is for purposes of how to proceed can you point me to any document that's previously been submitted on behalf of the applicant that addresses what should happen to this easement in this application I just refer to the to the engineered site plan prepared by Mr Ford and his testimony that I recall him speaking about this particular issue and where he proposes to relocate an easement now remember the easement wasn't the township didn't say this is where we want the easement when that case was settled the engineers said this is an appropriate place to give access it was never constructed so the the board is certainly on notice as is the applicant right my this this is a recorded easement it you know let us yes it is the result of a settlement something that we do all the time whether we necessarily agree this is the appropriate place to have it or not but the parties agreed as part of the resolution of the lawsuit that not this application so the public is clearly aware this is a lawsuit that dates back 20 years um between the township and the gelas and Mr and un like so the parties agreed this is where it went and the easan got recorded in the deed book in the county so whether or not the parties really wanted the easen there or not is immaterial it's there if ultimately it makes sense to move it somewhere else I don't think the township committee is even even if for some determination down the road this is a condition I don't even know if the township committee is obligated at that point to do anything about it so ultimately my concern at the complete again completeness is not a determination on the issue of the easement it's a completeness whether the board will accept the application for purposes of meeting the checklist to come before the board for consideration we're not going to get into the history of why this is taken this is the issue before if the board chooses to allow this application to be completed I want it clearly on the record that the board's determination to do such is a waiver by the applicant as to any claims that this board has recognized this matter as adjudicated or that the easan issue is resolved or simply moving forward with the EAS with this discussion with the easement pending is a waiver by the board of any claims end or defenses it has going forward in any matter related to this application including the expenditure of escrow money by Mr Mayu myself and whoever else for claims that those money should never have been expended especially now that Mr ogrodnik has raised is an issue over the fact that having spent it we somehow have agreed to hear it if anyone wants to comment on that of the three gentlemen I will be happy to hear it but I want the record to clearly indicate this board moves forward on this application in any manner shape or form that the board has not withdrawn or waved any rights privileges or defenses it has in this matter oh I agree that's reasonable I think it's just an an equitable a stoppable issue well yours is a detrimental Reliance issue so I me we if for those of us who like to play you know lawyer for I mean if this if this this this should have been a threshold issue perhaps but to uh well it was a threshold issue and it died on your end [Music] now this this board took jurisdiction of this appli I'm going to say it for the at least the third time Michael with all due respect granting completeness does not mean the board agrees to anything other than the application meets the checklist if the checklist your argument potentially is the checklist says all easements you're stuck with but short of that this notion that for any application that completeness somehow imbus legal rights other than the fact that it's complete and and the clock starts doesn't prevent this board from taking action down the road on an application that's not my argument my argument is that the applicant relied upon detrimental Reliance yes and we've actually finished the application the applicants case in Chief over many many many nights and it would be unfair to not finish the application for what would in many other circumstances and I would say all other circumstances be a condition now I understand I understand your arguments related to the the the case law on easements and and your position that um you know that I don't want to give you I don't want to give your arguments uh give the municipalities arguments but you don't want to give any Credence to I understand no but I think we understand each other I mean my point is you know we're we're almost a thousand days into this application keep saying it it's not going to get any shorter it's it's going to be 9:35 whether you say it it's 9:36 at this rate the point the point is if the board is inclined and I'm assuming Mr s conviction Mr Ash may have other things that do move this forward I wanted clear on the record that this board in no way shape or form is condoning or approving the current application with an easement running through the middle of the building by simply allowing the applic among other reasons by allowing the application to move to conclusion and if the board determines at the end of this application that they are going to agree with Mr Mayu that they cannot approve this application because there is an easan running through the middle of the building I anticipate you're going to argue oh let them finish the application so now I should get the approval so I want it clear on the record and for the board's edification the easiest issue for the board is to Simply ask for postponement of the issue pending the outcome if applicant doesn't want to do it then either applicant agrees to wave any claims it may have on this issue or the board can make a decision tonight if they choose not to extend the time of decision which will get us exactly where I don't think the applicant wishes to be at this time so um just for the benefit of the board who obviously this has been gone so it in March 15th of 2022 the township was in the receipt of a letter from Fox Russ child admitting to the fact that uh there was an application submitted for a warehouse though the personal letters to request the township committee accept the relocation of existing easement in favor of Township of Hillsboro as discussed by Township planner maski in his completeness review of memorandum so basically stating that they need to get access rights and the last paragraph of the letter would we would greatly appreciate the opportunity to discuss the easement relocation with the township committee please advise when this matter can be placed on agenda and we appre comment committees review and consideration that's where it ended no other um correspondents to the township committee to put on the agenda for doing this and I'm not you know the ship is sailed as you said about blame or whoever you know both sides there's a lot of people that get paid a lot more money than we do sit up here you would think that this would have been kind of ironed out before shovel one was put into a plan but it's obvious the applicant was aware that this had to be addressed um back in March of 2022 uh and proceeded to basically Kick the Can down the road and did nothing in hopes that maybe we wouldn't uh acques or at some point um provide that relief which obviously hasn't happened because I've been on the board since before that um just I'm old that's all um so it is disingenuous to say that we uh as a board 935 days to your point have kind of let this slide where it's really it was your responsibility as an applicant to make sure this was addressed before you even got in front of our board um and uh so uh I'm not I'm not going to sit here and and allow um the staff uh or the board to uh except um the burden of of your argument there because it was clearly on your radar or your Mr uh Chang's radar and was never addressed so I just wanted to share that that letter that's on Civic clerk by the way for anyone else that wants to see that so that being said um and as a member of the township committee uh I don't want to necessarily say that coming before the township committee to ask for an an easement removal I would probably have to abstain I'm sure the deputy mayy would probably have to abstain so that would leave three members of the board to to approve the easement which you have the opp the ability to do and and quite hly the responsibility to do uh and I would think that should be done prior to doing anything [Music] else I I would also point out I'm I'm concerned that if the applicant goes to the township committee for the request to move the easement we have nothing to to look at to see where the proposed easement would be moved to how it would affect the entrance and exit of the property how it would affect the storm water management for the property um and the the the setbacks from the the property so I I would agree that the application should be suspended or put on hold and the applicant needs to do the right procedure and have the easement dealt with whether it's good bad or indifferent and and I'd be concerned that we went forward we potentially approved or denied an [Music] application and if we approve and then you go to the township committee get an approval to move the easement then you got to come back to us with a revised set of plans to establish where the easements being moved so just one correction the the site plan accurately depicts where the applicant is suggesting the E easement be moved the well the applicant is suggesting and if and this is all hypothetical if the township committee would at some point agree to move the easement there is no guarantee that where they agree and move it is where you're proposing to move it too you're suggesting as part of this plan they are no more Bound by this plan than any other plan except the easement is currently in X and by the way I have not looked at the Judgment for this agreement I don't even know frankly if the settlement agreement allows for the moving of the easement because it was part of a Judicial sment it wasn't just some random agreement amongst the parties this was part of a settlement of a litigation and we've been down that road a couple of times before so [Music] again you have anything to say Jance I mean just to reiterate our previous position I mean I believe that this issue has to be resolved before a vote can be taken um to the extent this is a jurisdictional issue and frankly as I sit here right now I am not sure if it is or it is not um those jurisdictional issues can't be waved um there's no you know detrimental Reliance that would extinguish a jurisdictional issue um and uh I guess the last comment on this is to the extent that we do move forward this evening with the whatever amount of minutes we have left um we also don't wave any of our arguments or defenses or assertions that we may bring up after tonight um but that that doesn't change our position that we AG I agree with uh committee man leani and um board member rtz that uh we should suspend this and deal with this issue [Music] now the only way the board can suspend this application tonight I believe is for the applicant to agree to extend the time of decision the applicant doesn't agree to extend the time of decision then therefore either the application moves forward and we continue to my words Kick the Can down the proverbial Road or the board makes a decision tonight on the application as it currently [Music] exists I'm kind of torn as I usually am but I mean there seems well you know I mean what one of the comments of Mr R what's meant or said and I think I may have done this in some previous application I want to know what we're signing up for so with regards to any potential revision but since there seems to be a proposal already on the site plan I would think it wouldn't take very long to go to the township committee showing them this is where you want it move to and since that's the only option it should be relatively quick to get a yes or no answer from Township commiss before we continue because I won't speak on behalf of the township committee but I will as a former member Mr chairman quick in government action or by [Music] definition oxymorons and I would not place on the record that this should be a relatively expedited matter for a committee that I doubt is going to want to expedite it without understanding what it's dealing with now you're not referring to the Mountain View Park because that was there was only two of us left I on a committee and and and Freeholder Palmer with the last one standing when that project started but I'd like to think this would be a little bit quicker than my my only comment with relate related to kind of the efficiency of this is that you know I think it's problematic let's assume scenario a the applicant says we're just go to vote tonight okay well you you're then you know we would be making the decision to cut off their last witness okay and and I what I would hate to see is a remand just for clay Emerson's testimony that doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to me after the amount of time effort energy money uh to get to this point I I don't think I've ever developed a clearer record now I understand there's legal issues I understand there's planning issues but we've had every single professional witness that could possibly testify so the record is pretty robust at this point our case is over I'll I'll grant you that you have filled the record whether or not it is it is sustainable depending on everything and with the board Etc I'm not even going to and I don't want anyone else to respond please please thank you on the day that's left to better people than I uh at the moment I think the issue frankly is what's here and what's now um are there going to be any additional Witnesses Beyond Mr Emerson yes yes uh so so there's quite a bit more to come and and I believe correct me if I'm wrong Mr ogrodnik you indicated you plan on recalling Mr Ford correct and possibly wanting to examine Mr Mayu and Mr Co that's correct so there's not one more witness left um spending more money and equally importantly unless you want to Define K and Mayu as nonprofessional and I won't discuss that uh there are going to be more professional Witnesses potentially and Ford yeah I mean I I certainly don't want to see the waste of everyone's time and money you know at this point again I I think there's a clear option that the applicant has already provided as to where that's going to be relocated to the township committee again doesn't have you a lot to Mr chairman anal to go I would indicate to this board that the township committee can do whatever it wishes to do with its easement whether or not the applicant has put forward a potential viable place to put it it is not this board's determination nor any member of this board's determination to prejudge what the township committee members who are eligible to participate in that discussion assuming Mr leani and Mr chicarelli are excused to determine whether or not that will in fact be the magic choice if it is ever the magic choice so I would really suggest at the moment that we not speculate on what the committee will or will not do well what what the point I was trying to drive is that if they decide that that's not the location then we're looking at a whole new set of site plans if they decide not to Grant granted you this gets even more you time consuming that that's all I'm just trying to drive I want the record to indicate that it's speculation at Best by a member not necessarily binding on anyone [Music] yes for it's [Music] pleasure based on the fact that at the moment I don't hear anybody sugesting an Extinction to go looking for the application so it's either board's pleasure I would say this we'll agree to another extension but we're not um necessarily going to agree that that that this Board needs to wait for a determination by the township committee if I discuss with my professional team that we prefer a vote at the end of the next uh meeting then that's what we're going to that's we're going to suggest I again I don't think this board has jurisdiction to require a a movement of an easement it's it's never been done before and my recollection no a actually Mr orik it's an interesting comment you make the board is not seeking to move the easement you are you're not not you per se your client so I want to make sure that the record is clear that it's is not you the client is asking this board to agree as a condition to move an easement not within his jurisdiction that's not my point my point is it's an outside agency determination this is not a utility easement this is not a railroad track where everybody knows and some a utility railroad tracks Can't Be Moved utility easements I'm not even sure can be moved but the fact of the matter remains is that let us not believe that somehow this board is sub this is a condition this board can agree or not to agree that's a discussion for a future time if the applicant is willing to extend it one more meeting to see where this goes and for the board to consider the options available Etc or whether or not objectors want to finish M Dr Emerson or not it's their call I don't disagree potentially with Mr gnik potential that one of the options the court may do if it ends up in court is remanded back to finish the application that's generally the way it goes the courts are loow under the case law to make planning or zoning board decisions unilaterally at least on the first round as Mr and go grodnik and I and S eviction Ash have lived through more times than I choose to mention so um you're asking for one more you're offering one more Extinction is that what I'm hear I'm being essentially painted into a corner no no you can you can stay in the corner it's just you leaves it leaves the board with limited choices in their own Corner what I would suggest is that we extend the meeting to allow the applicant and the applicant's professional teams to make a determin ation on whether uh they will or will not seek uh Township committee approval for the relocation of the easement if we say that we'll do that then we can extend this application for however long it takes for the township committee to act if we do not then Mr Ash can decide if he wants to finish finish his Final witness or not and that ultimately I believe that would be a board decision however [Music] so are you are you saying you're adjourn for now to make decision on whether we're going to proceed or not okay I just want to make sure I understood what you're saying I I just want to state forther record to avoid any confusion I we are in no way waving our right to finish the testimony that we seek to provide um based on this adjournment at any time we fully intend to the extent this goes forward to finish Dr Emerson's testimony and to put on the other testimony that we I'm assuming that what may make the most sense for the board is to find a night of which this is the only proverbial game in town and we can plot this thing out where it goes and the recommendation Mr chairman if that is what the Mr ogrodnik is suggesting and everybody is holding on to its cards and not putting anything on the table so to speak I believe correct me if I'm wrong Mr uh Mr Co would be October the [Music] 10th that's I'm unavailable that evening I I make that point according to my scorecard I have uh November 14th as being available what's on the 10th uh we have two applications that have time of decisions uh Evergreen and TV you mean both Mr a gr no okay um not yours for exchange how did that happen Mr chairman I know you have been LOE and I'm going to throw it out there to use a business [Music] meeting but if you all want this done in or not done but at least confined to one night you can either do it the 14th of November or the last business meeting in October well if th you're going to do something you got something else on the ex I'm going by white calendar I would say November 14th because all right that's it the magic C can I just make one suggestion though since Mr ogrodnik needs to discuss with the professionals clearly he should be able to come up with an answer as to how his client and his professionals want to proceed um that being going to the township committee on the easan issue first shouldn't we be able to put a earlier date than November 14th as a date by which the applicant should respond and advise how they plan I'm proceeding because then at that point um Council knows exactly how they're going to proceed whether we need to be ready for the 14th for the additional testimony and to continue or the 14th is going to eventually essentially get canceled um and 14th is not going to get can well this particular application won't be heard that date no it'll get heard question is what will happen with it it will have this this application will get hard on another night the issue will be what the board is going to do relative to the application at that point okay well I I think Mr rtz is proposal is not an you can say it unreasonable no it's not an inappropriate comment which is if we're talking about a November 14th hearing date then po then Mr ogrodnik and his team and potentially Mr Ash and Mr sovic and his their team can decide where they want to go going forward come November 14th I I just want to make it clear you know our suggestion is that we finish the application so it's going to be a board decision whether you're going to allow and again it's not even our case in Chief it's the objector case well no you no we we just went we just went through this where it is yours because right now we're we're sitting here with a recommendation from the board engineer that we suspend this application until such time as this is resolve with the township committee whenever that may be the board is trying to find at least at the moment some kind of midpoint based on your suggestion to see whether or not we can move this forward and maybe what makes sense in the interim is for somebody it's for the attorneys for the for the parties to give us some idea where they think this should go if ultimately we get to November 14th assuming November 14th is the magic and we are at the same point we are today then either Mr Ash can go forward or not go forward I think he'll make his own decision and the board may or may not at some point along the line be required to make a decision but I think it's reasonable as Mr rtz has suggested for the parties to at least give us some indication in before the in advance of the 14th of November if that's the date what their plans are you may all go back and decide you know what we'll go to the committee and suspend it he may decide I'm going to see let's roll the dice and see where it goes I don't [Music] know but we won't know if Mr Ash is going to be able to continue the objector case in Chief what you're telling me no what you're saying is that no Mr Ash has a decision to make as well as you you need to decide whether or not you are willing to go forward with the application as is and not address the easement issue but continue the position that it's a condition and at that point if that's the situation then it's up to Mr Ash to decide in advance so he'll know in advance whether doc the man sitting behind you who looks so happy tonight is going to be back finishing his testimony and whatever else is going to happen we may ultimately end up guess what we're going to finish the application totally and it's still up to the board what they want to do but I'm I'm suggesting the 30 days before the next hearing both that you and Mr R both at least communicate to me what your hopes [Music] are if the answer is you want to go forward as is then it's up to to Jordan to decide whether he wants to go forward and let everybody [Music] know again if I may interject it it would also seem prudent to me knowing that this issue is out there that the applicant get a hold of the township committee and go through the processes to get this question on the calendar so that perhaps by the 14th which is two months away You' be able to report back to us and say hey this is going to be heard on the first week of December so here's where we stand we'll have an answer or you may have an answer already by then if the township committee can do that so I think it would be very prudent for everybody to agree to to take the opportunity to decide if you're going to go that route Now notify everybody and that'll certainly make the 14th much easier depending upon what your client chooses to do you don't know if it's going to be easier but it'll least be something well it'll it'll again folks I I caution this board very carefully to presuppose what another body is going to do any more than you would be unhappy if another body presupposed what you were going to do I understand the desires here I think the proposal here is if applicants willing to extend it to November 14th I would suggest a time of decision at the end of the year so we stop going through this if we're going to make a decision we're going to make a decision whether it's November 15th or November 14th or December 31st but I'll leave that to Mr ogrodnik and that 30 days prior to the next meeting that both parties advise my office as to what their positions are and if they're diametrically opposed at least I'll let them know what the diametrically opposed positions are I mean I I yeah but I mean that's fine I just this issue was brought up by Mr Ash earlier in this case and to the extent I'm not saying that the board is waving that issue I'm I'm arguing is that to the extent that the application doesn't finish to me it seems that that issue had been resolved and the board determined that we are going to hear the application that that may ultimately end up counsel being an issue before somebody who is got a black robe and sitting somewhere I'm just trying to get through whatever we can get through here in the absence of unless as I said both parties may come back and say you know what board roll the board make a decision we're going to reserve and see what happens on our testimony and you decide you're not in your client is not interested in going to the committee board make a decision I don't necessarily think that's going to happen but it's possible so that's my suggestion Mr chairman extend this matter to to the next meeting to November 14th I'm suggesting a time decision December 31st uh and that Mr ogrodnik and Mr Ash sinkovic advis me of what their clients respective positions are by [Music] sorry excuse me I look at my calendar so by Monday October 14th by Tuesday October 15th because Monday is supposedly a holiday 15th I'm going to just extend the time of decision to November 15th okay I would I would just note that in order to Aid our ability to provide Mr Bernstein with help information October 14th any communication with the township committee if we could be uh copied on it would be helpful to that end I would suggest both parties copy each other but basically the letter is to me so just for understanding since the time of decision is only going to go to November 15th meaning that we're guaranteed one more meeting if the objectors are not finished presenting their Witnesses where do we stand at that point we'll be we'll be right back to where we are tonight in the same situation qu tonight's time of decision assuming none of this happened was tomorrow so we'd be right back to where we are with not finishing the application and then having to make a decision well that and I guess that's my point if there's not another extension of the time of decision then do we have to then as a as a board a governing body I'm sorry no you know that we would have to decide whether to take a vote no the board well no if there is no extension of the time of decision rule in general irrespective of the situation today the board is left with no alternative but to either take an action or understand that if you let the if you do nothing the application is approved okay and that's not my decision that's the Court's decision on the interpretation of the missal land use law taking no action and the time of decision rule comes and goes you have effectively approved the application even if the objectors haven't finished doesn't [Music] matter okay which is why the board will take make a decision before the time of decision rule okay expires so just so I'm going to set expectations you know besides all the communication but on the night of November 14th we will have a hard stop at 10 p.m. regardless of where things are at and I expect as Mr burnson said if there's no extension in time of decision we will it may not be as hard stop at 10 p.m. but it'll be a hard stop for the hearing right well that's what I mean but that's going to well it will be well hard hard stop for the hearing and then shortly after that well you'll see where we are at that point we'll see where we are but it would be highly likely that we would probably be deciding to take an action I I'll just note that we are all intentions to move as efficiently as we possibly can through our testimony um and again to the extent we don't get through on that date we wave none of our rights we reserve all our rights understood I just want to make sure that everyone knows that all right depending on what happens on the and Mr and Mr CO's office nor mine are instructed to not put anything more on the agenda that night all right affirmative all right and I will also request even though we will have matters not on the agenda I may Reserve that to move that to the end of the that's that's a decision of the board so is apps Council and objectors Council agreement with what has been discussed now for the last 15 minutes in the sense of agreeing to it that the matter will be continued without further notice till 7 p.m. Thursday November the 4th 14th or soon thereafter as the matter may be heard as without further notice that the parties will advise my office and each other as to their positions honorable for the close of business Tuesday October 15th on their position as to what's been discussed tonight and that depending on same the board will be prepared to deal with I will advise the board accordingly all right and the time of decisions been extend to November 15th nober 15th and I request Mr o literally nothing on the agenda including meaning minutes or any business matter like I want to hit the ground running at 7 o'clock understood Mr chairman it's assuming the chairman is here at seven um well someone brings some pizza or something yeah Mr ogrodnik has signed his life away Miss bull uh yeah correct thank you Miss Paul um so with that I need a motion to extend well I'm going to say as what how Eric outlined it I'm not going to as I have outlined can can I just have a question point of clarification yes let's assume and I don't I have no idea what my clients are going to do let's assume that we say we're not uh we're not going to the township committee we want this board to vote would then this board make an act would make a a decision on whether to proceed or to the board could make a decision whether to proceed the board could make a decision to let Mr Ash and his Mr sovic finish their testimony the board may let the thing go on but at that point depending on how it takes you're back in control the issue of time decision so you may be the one who ultimately moves the board to take an action one way or another understood thank you [Music] okay okay so may have a motion to extend as this application as outlined by Eric Mr Bernstein it's all moved second moved it committee than you and the vice chair second it any final comments okay roll call please Mr Wagner yes Mr RIS yes Mr scobo yes commit him in the PTY yes Vice sherff PE yes sherff s yes so with that just a reminder that we are back here next week on the 12th for more funding for Vol right for additional at 7 pm just please notify the uh plane Board office if anyone's unable to attend and with that I will entertain a motion of adjournment okay okay all in favor hi we Jour good night see you everyone next week thank you thank you good night