There we go. It works. All right, we're about to start. >> All right, I'm just starting. You guys recording? All right, good evening everyone. Welcome to the Hillsboro Township Planning Board meeting of July 24th, 2025. Please join me in salute to the
flag to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Please be advised this meeting has been duly advertised according to section
five of the open public meetings act chapter 231 public law 1975 otherwise known as the sunshine law notice of the 2025 annual meeting schedule has been provided to the officially designated newspapers the township clerk posted on the township's website available here at
the Hillsboro Township municipal complex in addition application documents and plans have been made available on the township civic clerk website at at least 10 days in advance of this evening's meeting. Complete application files are available in the planning and zoning department for inspection in accordance
with the public meeting notice. That may have a roll call of plane board members and also board and township professionals, please. >> Miss Smith and Mr. Wagner are absent. Mr. Vitali >> here, >> Mr. Flag >> here, >> Mr. Mr. Deith
>> preselli >> here >> here. Sarra >> here. >> Miss McLaclin >> here. >> Paul >> here. >> Here >> and myself and the videographer are here. >> Can I welcome everyone? >> You approve. >> Okay. First up, we have considerations
of meeting minutes. We have a motion to approve the June 12th, 2025 meeting minutes. Mr. Bernstein, who's eligible? >> The eligible members, Mr. Chairman, are Mr. Leani, Mr. Pson, Mr. Flag, Mr. Mr. Vitali,
Mr. Deb, and Mr. Smith. >> Thank you. >> Second. >> Second. >> Okay. Discussion from DES hearing. None. Roll call, please. >> Mr. Mr. Flag. >> Yes. Mr. >> Yes.
>> Yes. Mr. >> Smith. >> Yes. >> Yes. Okay, we do not have resolutions for consideration. There's no planning board business and no ordinance for consideration. So, we'll move now to business from the floor for matters on
this evening's agenda. If you'd like to provide any comment to the board, please come forward. State your name and address for the record. Excuse me. Maria Janusk, 720 East Freck Avenue, Manville, New Jersey. I'm also a
Hillsboro Township property owner, block 86, lot 3, 215 Camplain Road. Um there have been uh many applications before this board for properties that have wetlands and flood hazard areas. And um
the applications a lot of times uh where it says specific site concerns and it says be specific um historic environmental etc. They don't show the environmental um
concerns which could be wetlands uh flood hazard area uh maybe something with the Delaware and Marited Canal Commission or streams. Uh that's not shown. Uh, so Hillsboro has an ordinance 2023-02,
an ordinance by the Township Committee of the Township of Hillsboro amending the Township of Hillsboro code of ordinances to repeal chapter 172 to adopt a new chapter 172 to adopt flood hazard maps to designate a flood plane
administrator and providing for sever severability severability and an effective date. Further consideration and public hearing will be held on April 11, 2023 and um so this
um is uh has uh res regulations designed to promote the public health, safety and general welfare of its citizenry. And then on page the next page under article
one scope and administration it says these regulations in combination with the flood provisions of the uniform construction code um etc shall be known as the flood plane management regulations of the township
of Hillsboro and then purposes purposes and objectives are a protect human life and health um prevent b prevent unnecessary disruption of commerce access access and public service during
times of flooding and then J says says, "Ensure that property owners, occupants, and potential owners are aware of property located in flood hazard areas." Who provides the um information to
property owners, occupants, and potential owners so that they know that properties are in a flood hazard area. Not this board. There have been applications like Campus Associates uh Sherman uh Sherman uh uh
uh property uh phase one and phase two both have flood hazard wetlands all that stuff. The application today for Glengary is flood hazard area and a lot of uh >> we can't talk about that issues and so
>> who provides information when you have a res a residential area that's been approved in a flood hazard area. Who notifies these people before they buy that this is a flood hazard area and serious potential for flood?
>> I'm sure I'm sure any home just happened now. >> I'm sure any person that's a prospective buyer will do their research. What? >> I I would suggest that the answer to your question >> will be found with a consultation with a local attorney
>> to with a local attorney to give you an education on how a property owner uh investigates a property for environmental hazards, for uh flood hazards, for anything else. They might be able to provide you guidance. As Mr.
Bernstein said, this is well beyond the purview of this board. So, what you're saying is that when someone is buying a property, their attorney needs to notify them that um if there if this property is in a hazard
area. >> All I've suggested is your question should be directed to an attorney of your choosing, sit down, have a consultation with them, and ask them this question that you're proposing. This board can't answer that question
for you. But can an answer be given as to why this is a comment section on the application uh there's no information given regarding specific site concerns which includes environmental >> no one's going to answer that question because again this is a for public
comment not a Q&A session if you've got questions you either should seek legal counsel to rectify those or if they're planning related I'm sure you know >> the the planning office will be more than happy to schedule a meeting with you.
>> Oh, check with who with the planning office. >> If you have a question that they can answer, I'm sure they're more than happy. >> The engineer the in-house engineering office. >> That's true. Ch. >> Sorry, Mr. Attorney Bernste. >> Or the town or the in-house township engineering department.
>> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Anyone else from the public? Okay, no one getting up. So, we are going to move on to our public hearings tonight. First one up is going to be
Cany International file number 24-PB-04- SPV time of decision July 31st of this year. It's block 200.02 2 lot 11 formally block 200 point B lot 29B
commonly known as 259 Homestead Road applicant seeking minor site plan approval seek variances and waiverss for approval of outdoor storage as an accessory to the permitted use at the existing facility on property located in the light industrial district. So that
council >> thank you Mr. Chairman, members of the board, good evening. My name is Matt Flynn from Savoshalk Law in Somerville. Here tonight representing the applicant county international in connection with its application for minor site plan approval and other relief to as outlined
um permit the outdoor storage of stone monuments. It's on the site designated as block 200.02, lot 11 in your tax records, more commonly known as 259 Homestead Road. Uh I can report that we are in receipt of your consultants reports dated July 21st
from Mr. Kois and April 18th from Mr. Mayhew and can confirm that as conditions of approval we can comply with all recommendations contained in those two reports. The for this project, the proposed principal use is
manufacturing permitted in your LI light industrial zone with the outdoor storage component being a permitted accessory use provided that we meet certain buffering requirements, which we do. Uh the only variance we're seeking tonight is a pre-existing non-conforming
condition. The required lot area in the LI zone is 2 acres and we come in at 1.997 acres. So, uh the lot area is insufficient by 0.003
acres and we would be looking uh for that variance relief as part of an approval for the minor site plan here tonight. Um again, the site plan component of this application really just works to clean up the site and install additional landscaping. It's
really that simple. Um, we have one witness tonight, Mike Ford from Van Clee Engineering, our project engineer. Notice has been mailed and published pursuant to the requirements of the municipal land use law. So, unless you have any questions for me, I'd like to have Mr. Ford sworn in and bring our
direct presentation. >> Michael. >> Yes. Uh, Michael Ford, FOD, a licensed engineer and planner in the state of New Jersey for more than 35 years with Van Clee Engineering
um here in Hillsboro and appeared before this board numerous times. And I'll add to my qualifications, I became a grandfather for the third time this past Tuesday. >> We would offer him a >> I'm a little trouble focusing honestly.
a little boy. Everybody's doing well. Excellent. >> Where's it? Where can I look? >> Hey. Hey, Jimmy. Hey. >> So, assuming Mr. Ford is acceptable to
the board. Okay. Thank you. Uh Mike, why don't you go through the existing conditions on site and then what we're proposing as part of this application. >> Okay. Yeah. It's really uh just as straightforward and as uh simple as Matthew has described. Uh it's in the
light industrial zone. It's permitted use. It's in operation. The materials are actually on site and there was an observation by township staff that there was a need to um clean up the history of
the site to officially permit the outdoor storage. Uh and it's um grave monument stones that are u portions pieces uh that are fabricated or manufactured and
um labeled on site. and then picked up or delivered to customers. Uh there was some uh questions within the two uh staff memorandum that Matthew described. One being regarding the dumpster which
is at the rear of the building and how it's accessed for a truck. And I'll say that the forklift that's on site that's used for the moving of the materials is also used to move the dumpster so that it's accessible and and gets picked up
by the trash truck once a week. Um, with regards to the outdoor storage and um, making it official uh, on the record permitted at the site, there's some enhancements to the perimeter
landscaping that need to be uh, implemented as well as a a conservation buffer easement that would protect those uh, screenings. and we provided a plan that shows uh landscaping on three or
three and a half sides. And there's a portion along the front along Homestead Road that the board engineer uh located that that wasn't uh designated for screening and we certainly will add that screening there as well as the easement around it.
Um there's existing parking on site that's sufficient for the uh operation of the site. Um but it is deficient in the sense that 13 spaces are required where nine are there. So that would be one of the relief uh factors as far as a
design waiver as well as the size of those parking spaces and the access aisle to those existing parking spaces doesn't comply with the current township standards but has been the situation um for some time and as long as the
applicant has owned the property and operated there. >> There's also a waiver for the aisle width. >> That's correct. Can you talk a little bit about safe access and circulation on the site? >> Yeah, the as I said the the uh owner is
there now and operates um the monument you know manufacturing facility has employees parked there and the size of the spaces and the access aisle to them is u acceptable.
>> Uh in Mr. Quois's memorandum. There's a suggested condition of approval to address the parking to make sure that um the nine spaces as proposed in the design waiver are adequate. Uh you agree that we can offer that as a condition of approval to make sure that the parking
is sufficient and monitored by the township? >> Yes. Yeah. There's an item 3A that suggests language that would be part of any condition of approval the board may grant and we are um fully accepting of that condition. >> Um I think you touched on four, five,
and six. Number seven is that you'll supply the fire fire marshals requirements for fire trucks to access the storage area. Um >> yeah, actually we did. We also received a July 22nd, 2025 memorandum from Mr.
Wernern. uh suggesting that the fire district had no comments regarding the application. So I would deem that our access is acceptable. >> Um do you want to quickly run through uh the penoni report that was uh offered by Mr. Mayhew?
>> Sure. >> There's uh two pages. Page one basically lists the items that were reviewed. On page two is the comments. Under general comments, there is an acknowledgement that the existing conditions are well under the maximum allowable impervious
coverage on the site as part of this site improvements to to secure the factual approval of the outdoor storage. There's no uh new um impervious area being placed. In fact, there's a small portion of existing impervious area
that's within the uh area that's going to be designated as the landscape buffer screening at the perimeter about 47 square feet that'll be removed. So, there's a slight decrease in impervious coverage. So, no storm water management uh requirements are uh effective for
this project. Under landscaping, there's five comments. And again, we agree to address each and every one of those five comments to um the board engineers satisfaction. And then under soil erosion and cement control, since we don't trigger a local
soil erosion and cement control uh approval, we don't need any outside agencies such as the county DNR Canal Commission and like I've just stated the Somerset Union Soil Conservation District because we don't disturb um
anywhere near 5,000 square feet. But we will implement those suggestions that um had been asked that is to add a note to the plan regarding the township's requirements under section 188-52 >> and they're on civic clerk but you can
confirm that we do have exemption letters from DRCC and the Somerset County Planning Board. >> Don't know that we even made application for exemption. >> I can offer as a >> It's been months since we submitted so it's not applicable. Yeah. >> Yeah.
>> Uh and finally, um can you just touch on the the lot area variance that's technically required? Um >> I I think that the fact that it's so close to the the shortfalls dimminimous.
Um, I wouldn't doubt that if you went back in history that the lot was probably supposed to be or intended to be two acres and just fell short for some reason over time with surveys updated.
um we're not uh anywhere near uh impacting or not qualifying for all the other bulk standards that go along with lot area like building setback lot coverage. So I would argue that the
existing nonconformity uh can be approved by this board without any adverse impact to the neighbors, the township zone code or the master plan. >> And we're not changing the dimensions of the property. Is that correct? >> No. >> So I have nothing further from Mr. from
Mr. Ford. >> Okay, Mr. Mayhem. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, we have no further questions. >> Okay. >> We also have no further questions. >> Okay,
board members and it's on Homestead Road. >> No comments. >> You got to laugh. We still got another month and a month or so. >> Board members, any comments, questions? mic.
>> Turn your mic on, please. >> All right. So, the size of the parking space and the accessibility, right? Just wanted to make sure that it's uh you know, it complies to the ADA standards, minimal ADA standards. >> Oh, the ADA to the best of Yeah. For for
handicap access. There is one of the nine spaces is a handicap accessible space and that complies. Correct. >> Okay. So there is no undue, you know, what should I say? Inconvenience to, you know, folks through this. >> Okay, that's it. Thank you. >> Go ahead.
>> I do have one question. Um, Chief Wigger wanted me to confirm that the drive aisle in the rear is a minimum of 20 ft and I couldn't tell because it says 21.7, but that's from the end of the parking lot parking space to past the existing outdoor storage. So if he just
wanted to make sure it's 20 ft. Yeah, we're labeling the the narrow space in there. Yeah. >> Mr. Ford, um what is the from a snow removal drainage melting with all the monuments out
there? How does how does the lot drain? Are there in are there drains in the parking lot? >> There's there's one drain uh there's no drains in where the parking spaces are. They drain uh toward the front of the property and you'll see there's a swale
across I'll say the front which is the the south side the homestead roadside and there's drainage improvements in the front of the lot. >> Correct. Okay. So there are some plans to improve drainage for for snowball because obviously when you have a bunch
of monuments out there moving snow and and obviously water tends to try and find pass resistance in them just making sure that freeze and thaw everything is moving away from the parking spaces. So >> yeah there the the monuments are um on pallets so they
>> allow flow. Yeah, they're there's space below them here. >> All right, that's all. Um, Mr. Ford, did you um are we adding and maybe I missed it, adding some more screening on the the side road? Is that correct?
>> Yes. >> Vegetation. >> Yes. >> I think that's great. That goes a long way. >> Yeah. The access drive to the mini storage and the building to the east of us. Yes. >> Thank you. >> Yes. Any other
Can I have a motion to open the public, please? >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> Okay. If there's anyone from the public that would like to question Mr. Ford on his testimony, please come forward. State your name and address for the record.
>> I see no takers. >> I think it worked that you said. 5 O 21 in looks a lot like dad. I know you guys are all wondering. >> Mr. Bernstein, anything. >> Unless Mr. Fischer has something to say
for himself. Mr. Flynn, pardon me, has something to say for himself. >> No, I don't have anything to add. I would just ask this board for an approval. We're not reinventing the wheel. The only thing we're doing is improving the aesthetics of the site by adding more landscaping. The uses
permitted. And again, we're here for relief because of probably a surveying error at some point that put us again. 03 acres below what's allowed. >> Okay. Do I need to close? >> Motion to close. >> Motion to close to public.
>> So moved. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> Okay. So this is the last I'm not used to the last bite of the apple for the public. >> We usually just have to enjoy tonight while you may. >> Uh >> my office wanted to give you an easy
one. >> Thanks. >> Um Mr. Chairman, this would be a resolution to approve the application of Cany International Inc. file 24 PB4 SPV
block 200.02 O2 lot 11, formerly known as block 200 point B, lot 29 point B at 259 Homestead Road, approving a minor sub minor site plan approval C, bulk variances and waiverss and agreeing to
all the conditions and requirements set forth in the reports from Penoni, from um Mr. Kois and the comments agreed upon on the record this evening. Okay,
>> I'll make a motion, Mr. Chairman. >> Okay, final comments hearing none. Roll call, please. >> Mr. Velli, >> yes. >> Mr. Fl, >> yes. >> Mr. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Mr. Smith, >> yes.
>> Yes. >> Uh, yes. And thank you for improving the lot as well, >> Pas. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Thank you. Thank you for your time. >> Thank you. >> You have a motion to adjourn, Mr. Chairman.
>> Not that fast. >> Okay. So, next up, >> we do that always for the second half. >> Eminem Realy Partners at Hillsboro LLC. File number 21-PB-16-MS. Time of decision. October 10th, 2025.
Block 182, lot 11.01, 1, formerly part of block 182, lots 10, 11, 12, 45, and 46, commonly known as 75 Hamilton Road. The applicant seeking amended preliminary and final major subdivision
approval to add 10 single family dwellings, dwelling lots back into the subdivision plan. Now that the 10 lots have been made part of the sanitary sewer service area, resulting in 198 total lots, of which 196 single family dwellings and
associated improvements will be constructed on the property located in the R8A residential district. And I'm just going to turn it over because there's more to say, so I'll let you do it.
>> Closer. There we go. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Okay. >> Start again. Ireina Elgart from Wearten Law Firm on behalf of Eminem Realy Partners at Hillsboro LLC. We're here for an amended subdivision approval for a total of 196 lots. Uh we received, as
you heard, our prior approval to subdivide the property in January of 2023. Um our original application was for 198 lots. Uh 10 were not in the sewer service area. So, as a condition of that approval, it was condition A in the
resolution. Um, it permitted us to come back once the lots had been included in the sewer service area. So, now that they are included, uh, we're also redrawing a few of the lot lines. Um, so in total, we will have 196, not 198,
which was the original application. >> Um, and this is a permitted use. There's no new variances or waiverss contemplated by this application. Um and to make it relatively simple, um we are
going to comply with all of um Mr. Koi's comments um in his memorandum dated uh July 16th uh with one exception. Um on page two, um he indicates in the introduction that
there's 195 lots. It's just should be corrected to 196. I think he might have been looking at some prior plan or something. So other than that, we're going to comply with his comments. Um, and then also with the fire marshall's
comments uh dated uh July 7th, 2025, we plan to comply with all of his comments as well. Um, we will go through Mr. Mayhew's letter. Uh, primarily we are going to be complying, but there are a few things that we just need to discuss
first. Um, and today I have here Ron Olenbeck from director the director of planning and engineering on behalf of the applicant. Um, if he could be sworn in, I'd appreciate it. >> I do.
>> Sure. Ronald Olenbeck. A len bac. Thank you. >> Okay, great. Um, I'd like to mark before you start plans. Um, this will be A1. It it's colorized versions of site
plans that we had previously submitted. Um, it's the overall subdivision plan C5 it and then subdivision plan A C6, subdivision plan C7, subdivision plan F, C11 for the
>> mark these, Miss Elgard individually and for the purposes of the record who the author of these are. The plans were prepared by PSNS. >> Is somebody from PSNS going to testify?
>> He's here. >> Yeah, we're using >> going to be needed. The board's going to probably want, and I'm getting that look from several of my board members. They're going to want somebody to testify at to these pages >> as to
>> what they signify what they are. >> Okay. Well, I mean, >> you're not g you're not going to break the record of the last application. So, let's >> I was trying. >> I know. I know you. >> It is relatively simple, >> but but it's not going to happen.
>> Not as simple, but simple. Um, so if Ron could go through what exactly we're proposing now and how it's changed from our prior application, if the board still wants to hear >> Yes. >> from Mr. Herman, he's here to testify
for sure. So, >> Mr. Bernstein, just by way of clarification, um, >> I don't know what the exhibit number was going to be, but C5 uh, prepared by PSNS with a latest revision date of July. We normally, and I think you're familiar
with this from previous visits, that we would generally probably mark each page as an individual exhibit number. So, we simply have it for the record, separate and apart. I know you've submitted it as part of the the application, but since you're submitting
a colorized version, we're going to want some kind of testimony as to the differences between and why. >> No, understood. I thought you wanted clarification on the author and the date. >> Well, I if going to call the author, then I I don't need that.
>> Okay. >> Um I'm sorry. >> Excuse me. Will you be presenting these up on >> Yeah. Last time I was here, I think I broke the screen. So, um >> yeah, if you >> got locked on drawing, I we couldn't get it off. I I have it on my laptop and
I'll take another chance, but >> you remember that, right? We budgeted for your return. >> It was like burned in the screen last time. I mean he he did it
We just went from one extreme to the next. >> I apologize. >> Sorry. Good joke. Sam, you fixed this one. Maybe you can fix this. How about it? >> It remembers.
Yeah, I got a daily calendar. No, daily calendar. testify often on >> my computer that right we're sub we're substituting in from Mr. back. >> So, we have to
>> once he gets his computer up, why don't we wait for that? >> And I don't have a power cord. So, got >> that means you need to speak fast. It's never happened. I'm sure >> everyone's making my argument going back
to paper. >> Yes. Uh Craig Herman. H E R M A N >> M state your education experience for the record.
>> Uh I have a um bachelor's of science uh degree in civil engineering from Ruckers University College of Engineering uh in 1996 and I have been a professional engineer since 2004 working in the industry since 1996.
I have testified in front of this board before. >> Okay. Any objections? Hearing none. We accept. Please continue. >> Current. >> Yes. >> No grandchildren. >> No grandchildren. >> No grandchildren.
>> Okay. So, if you could go through um we'll mark as A1. the overall subdivision plan that's was previously submitted as C5 dated July 11th, 2025. >> July 1st.
>> Oh, July 1st. >> Yeah. >> My eyes are deceiving me. Apologize. >> You want to um label them all now? >> Yeah, that'll Well, that'll be A1. >> A1. And then >> C6 will be A2. >> Correct.
>> CO7 will be A3. And then C11 will be um A4. >> So if you could >> sure >> proceed and let the board know how our application has changed and what we had
previously proposed and what's what's new now. >> Okay. So, um, as we discussed, uh, we had a we were approved for 198 lots in the original, um, application and because, uh, 10 of
the lots had sanitary sewer generating structures that were outside of sanitary sewer service area. uh 10 the proposed improvements including the single family dwelling and associated improvements, driveway, walkways and the like were removed from
those 10 lots. Um so it um we could get the conditional approval without having uh issues with the sanitary sewer service area at that time. And again, the subdivision was still for the 198 lots. We just didn't have the proposed
houses and associated improvements on 10 of those lots. So since then we have obtained a water quality plan amendment through the D which put those lots back or put those lots into the sanitary sewer service
area. So this application is a minute application to put those uh improvements single family doily and associated improvements back onto those 10 lots where they where they removed before. So, looking at an overall site plan, uh
the lots and green is another subject I'll touch on right after this, but it was for four lots within what I'll call the Falcon uh East subdivision or not subdivision, we'll call it Falcon East neighborhood.
There's four lots within this area where the um at first the lots were outside San area. they are now in and we're proposing to add the 10 homes and associate improvements back. And then for the U Hamilton
uh neighborhood, there were a total of six lots. So, we're adding the proposed improvements back to those six lots, which equals the 10 lots that we're asking to put back the improvements back on um that are now within a sanitary
sewer service area. So with the numbers 198 subtract the 10 we're at 188 and now we're back up to 198 in the process uh we have worked through and obtained the New Jersey D um
wetlands approval and this is where uh the issue came about with the lots up here in in green. So to focus in on those lots, what happened was uh it was identified that there is a um regulated
area in accordance with the flood hazard area rules, not flood hazard area, sorry. Um the freshwater wetlands rules uh which um that regulated area encroached into three of the 198 lots
that were approved. You can see the blue lines were the original lot lines that we uh had approved. And as you can see, uh we had lot 50 and then lot what was left of lot 49 we didn't have enough
room to uh put a single family dwelling on with the regulated area. So we looked at lots 50 and 49. And lot 50 was an oversized lot uh in accordance with the zoning requirements. So we were able to shift a
lot line between 49 and 50 over towards the I'll call it the west enabled. So that enabled us to provide a conforming lot for lot 50 and then a conforming lot for lot 49 that could include both the
regulated area and a single family dwelling on uh lot 49. So again, if we're looking at the general numbers, we were at 198, we went down to 188, went back up to 198. Then we lost the three
because of the regulated area. We went down to 195. But because of the lot line shift that we're requesting as part of this application, we add that one house back in, we're now up to 195. So,
>> I'm sorry. >> 196 196 >> 196 sorry 196. So, uh final would be the 198 lots with a 196 that have uh proposed houses and proposed
improvements on. Other than these changes with the addition of the houses back to the lots, there have been no changes to the drainage design. uh no J no changes to any of the infrastructure,
any of the utility work, any of the sewers. When we removed the the houses from those 10 lots, we made no changes to any of of those items or the infrastructure. They all remained and now we're just putting them back in and it the infrastructure still serves all
196 lots that will have the proposed single family dwelling improvements. I think that's >> Can I ask you a quick question there? So on lot 49 um where the wet or the I'll
call it wetlands but the encroaches right near the house there is that to remain undisturbed so the property really is just a small sliver between the house on 49 and the that green marked area is that going to maintain like a a wetland under
>> Yes. the green marked area from I'll call it down uh plan from that uh dark green dashed line down at in the hatched area that will all remain undisturbed. Yes. >> Will that be delineated so it can't be encroached upon by the homeowner so to
speak like start cutting grass or whatever. Is there a fence or something going to be there? >> Yes. I believe as part of the approval there's um signage that's required for regulated areas. >> Okay. Thank you. Plus a post and rail fence will be
required. >> All right. Thank you. Um, next, if we could proceed to Mr. Mayhew's letter of July 22nd, 2025. And
we're going to start on page two. Uh the first comment is a statement. The second one we will comply uh with regard to the third comment with regard to the footprint on lot 55. If you could >> pitch on pitch
>> on pitch. Sorry. We'll comply. Um, if we can't put the geog grid, we'll either design some type of wall that doesn't need it. >> Can we uh zoom into that lot for the benefit of the board? >> Sure. I'm sorry. I mean, I could hold back, but it might be more productive to
discuss as we go through the comments. So, >> Oh, no worries. >> If you could zoom in. >> I think you're right in terms of addressing it. They don't know that I have to be on your side. >> That's right.
>> So Craig, if you could help for the board's benefit, what we're concerned about is talking to the mic. The rear >> maintenance area >> left corner is almost touching
the required conservation area. Um, so if there's a and I believe your plan points out a retaining wall. So for the board's benefit, a retaining wall generally would have a geogrid holding the wall up. We we don't want a situation where the wall gets built and then when they try
to build the home, they're cutting into the geo web. So, um, we'll just have to build a slightly smaller house there or at least, um, design it in a way that maybe that corner is cut out or something to provide the room we need. But we'll we'll accommodate that.
>> Yes. >> I I just think since things sometimes get lost as construction moves forward, we need a note or something on the plan in there at that lot. >> Okay. >> But warning people to a certain setback from that wall. We can add that.
And it would also be interesting if you built that. How would a homeowner get from the rear yard to the side yard? >> That's what I was asking. Yeah. >> So that's a drop off there. >> Yes. >> What is this the drop off? I believe it's about five or six feet. >> I think so. Yes.
>> So you would need to have a fence of some sort. >> Yeah. The plan calls for a fence. Yes. >> We show fence on top of it. >> So we'll accommodate as we get closer to So we'll put a note on the plans as well as we'll revise the plans as necessary. of the house. We can smoke, right?
Um, comments four, five, and six, we will comply. Uh, >> can can I ask just for the board's benefit a couple questions on number four? >> Um, could we because I don't I can't seem to
find it. Can we get copies of the LOI plans? >> Sure. >> PDS would be beneficial. >> And the reason I ask is we we noticed you submitted copies of the freshwater wetland permit plans
and some of those permits have specific restrictions on certain wetland pockets, but those aren't labeled on that plan. So that's why we need the LOI plans. >> We'll provide that. Um, our office has paper copies of the
FHA plans, but it would be beneficial if you could submit PDFs to to Hillsboro office. >> And then lastly, unless I've missed it, have you received the um flood hazard area permits yet?
>> Yes. >> So maybe it just hasn't been submitted to I haven't seen it in the file. So if we could get >> PDS and I think the likes uh at least one paper copy as well.
Do you know what the And I want to clarify, Mr. Herman, the FHA permit that you received, did that show these 10 lots, houses, driveways, and so forth? Uh it it got
approved as our original approval here with the 10 lots with no improvements and we're going to go back to the D for a flood hazard area modification. >> Okay. So you'll keep the township and our office up to date on that amendment.
>> Yes. >> Okay. And then number five >> is we're just asking for a copy of that plan as well. The repair and buffer disturbance plan >> and I've already mentioned the LI. >> Okay, those are the questions I have up
to number six. Okay. So, we'll provide PDFs as well as one paper copy. Um, okay. And then on page three with this regard to the storm water management comments. Uh, first one, we will comply.
Um, with regard to the second, it references a waiver. Um, however, that was already granted from the prior approval. Um, unless you have any questions. I'm looking at you. I think not. I have to
check and I'll rely on Mr. Herman's testimony. Are you proposing 10-inch pipe in any of the 10 lots that have come back? Whatever's shown on the plan. So, um, if it was, like I said, there was no change
to the drainage infrastructure. So, uh, yes, if we had on a first plan, then we we have it here. >> I'll I'll defer to the board. Um, but it would be our office's preference to have a minimum of a 12-in
pipe rather than the 10 inch. >> Uh, as long as we can make it work work, you know, um, vertically, then yes, that won't be a problem. >> I don't know how to take that answer then. >> Well, again, if there's an issue where we have a cover issue with meetings, uh,
getting into certain inlets and stuff, that may be why we went went for 12 in. But if there's no issues like that, then we will absolutely provide the toage. >> So I guess if we're the I guess the way we would word it is we would you would agree to a 12-in pipe if unless you run
into cover conditions and then our office would support a waiver in those localized situations for the tenants. >> That's good. Yes. >> Okay. >> Agreed to that. >> Right. So Mr. May you I I think we need one clarification
with regard to number one. Um you referenced a right of way. Um are we which rightway are we talking about? Because all the roads from what we understand are going to remain private. >> Well, what it meant was any utilities outside of the roadway easement or
roadway. Do we need an additional utility easement? >> I'm assuming they're all going to get put on subdivision plans. these easements. >> Yes. >> Okay. Um, and with regard to condition three, if you could go through
with regard to the roof drain leaders. >> So, I think uh that'll be done in a plot plan process for the homes. and and also too all of the houses may not correct connect directly into storm seash
spl excuse me splash blocks. My my concern is um the drainage areas that you show to the MTDs don't include the roof runoff. So I'm assuming that was intentional so that you could size the
MTDs to minimize the Now if for some and you have a note although notes are it's on one drawing out of all these drawings and it's hard you know it can get missed. My concern is if roof drains don't get put in then we've changed the drainage area to some of the MTDs that
are already designed. >> Understood. We'll make sure that um the roof leaders are installed where required to get into a specific system uh to keep it outside of the MTDs where
um uh they weren't part of drainage area. >> The only way I know to how to help help the township and help the building department when the day comes because our office is not looking at building permit plans and is the only way I know
how to help that office is to show these on the drawing so they know what to look for when they're reviewing a plot plan. >> We will include that. >> We'll include that. Thank you. >> Okay. Uh with regard to number four, we are going plan on we're going to comply
with number four. Number five, uh we will clarify and revise um sheet C54. Um with regard to number six, we're going to comply. Number seven, we will clarify and provide that as well. Um
>> could I help? So just so I understand now, yes, >> when you're doing the stormwater management calculations, Could you help help me understand what were you using for impervious cover on each of the lots? >> We had uh included in the impervious
cover a an overall not an overall for each lot. We added a general number for imperous cover for each lot to the impervious cover calculations. >> Is that shown >> generative? >> Is that shown anywhere? Uh, I don't know
if it was specifically separated out in the storm water management report, but I think by complying that we can provide that to you, some sort of a general what we did for each lot. >> So, and just for the board to understand, I'm assuming then you didn't
just take, let's say the zoning allows 25% impervious, you didn't just multiply 25% times that individual lot area. It might be a little bit more, might be a little less, you're saying? >> No. Well, um, we took a general number.
So, uh, we we probably did do like the 25% and per cover for that lot and we use that in the number. >> All right. Well, we're going to need clarification and then we'll need to make sure the drawings are clear because and the building department and planning
department and I've had conversations in the past and where if it's not based strictly on a percentage of that lot, then we run into a situation where as plot plans are submitted to the town, someone has to keep track of the amount
of impervious cover approved so that when you get to the last house, you haven't exceeded it's allowed and in fact Mr. Kois and I have discussed this is going to be an issue over at the Roybrook uh enclave in Robrook will be
an issue. So I'm trying to minimize that administrative exercise for the building office in Hillsboro. So our office would like to see something that we can work with you to make sure it's on the drawing so
everybody knows what's allowed to be built. Okay. Thank you. >> Um and with regard to 8 n and 10, uh having recently received the comments,
uh we will provide and we will see if we can comply, but we can't tell you right now if we can comply or not with um comments 8, nine, and 10. And if we can make it pursuant to resolution compliance, we'll provide this
Well, let's let's separate those three comments because eight and 10 kind of have to do with the new stormwater management that went into effect in 2023. Number nine is strictly a math. >> I would think there's a way usually when it comes down to math addressing that
velocity. >> Yeah. >> So, I got to hope that you're saying yes, you will address. So, so nine nine will address and in fact we have our SEDD approvals and we went through um a lot of heartache with the SED and looking at the outflows out of each head
wall. So yes, we will comply with that requirement. Okay. So let's focus on eight and 10. It's our office opinion and of course we're going to defer to board. making simply a suggestion that um the way we would treat these new 10
lots is they would have to meet the 20203 D stormwater management regulations which your township implemented in a new ordinance in 24 and it comes down to I guess just a couple items. One would be the D
introduced slightly higher rainfall amounts in 2023. And the second part uh the township when they redid their ordinance um change the way an applicant can meet the
recharge criteria. uh if an applicant is proposing to reclassify the hydraologic group for the on-site soils from let's say C to D, the township uh eliminated one of their uh
quantitative options. Uh rather than doing an annual spreadsheet of recharge, the applicant has to demonstrate that they're going to recharge the difference between the pre and post two-year storm runoff. and the township allows the use
of infiltration rates significantly below what the D would approve. And I'd like to say that since that ordinance went into effect, uh, every application that I I've been involved in and and also at the board of
adjustment, applicants have met that condition. And so what our office is suggesting is for the basin one and number six because those are the two basins impacted by these 10 homes that we would suggest the board require the applicant
meet the recharge criteria. If I could help a little bit more discussion the applicant submitted uh very thorough test pit data. I think there'sund and some test pits were done several years ago. A couple of requests I have. One is I can't read the copy
that's submitted in the report. >> So if you could submit, it's probably on a full size print. If you could submit the PDF and a full-size copy to the township office. Uh my other request would be the test results that came back for infiltration
simply said they passed or failed. Now, that that might work with the D, but if you put water in a and I don't want to get too technical here, but if you put water in a test pit and maybe it dropped an inch or two over 24 hours, that would
not meet the D criteria, but it may meet the Hillsbor criteria. So, we would like to see the actual infiltration rates that were achieved. >> Well, so with regard to eight and 10, um, the way I'm looking is that we're
grandfathered in with regard to the prior rags and you know we comply with the fact that you know we were coming before the board just for once we get our D approval for the
service amendment then that's what we're going to be complying with with whatever the D has us complying with and and from what I understand they did not impose the 2023 regs on Okay. >> Yeah. This this is an interesting
conversation as to um what applications are grandfathered before the D 2023 regulations went into effect in July of 23. It's our office opinion that this amendment to the plan would be required to meet the new regulations. As an
example, there was the 206 Hillsbor application uh where they wanted to convert two retail pads to additional apartment units. And this board um followed through with our office suggestion to make the
applicant meet the new stormwater rags just for the areas that were being changed, which was those two >> footprints. So, our office strongly believes that the runoff from these 10 lots would need to meet the new regulations
>> and we will try to see if we can but like I said we're the what our position is that we're grandfathered in that >> the one thing I would like to add to is that again as I had indicated um we made
no changes to the drainage infrastructure and that also included the three lots where the improvements have been removed and there will be no improvements on it. Well, actually two and a half. So, um if we I don't have
exact numbers. We just got the letter. We did not put these to exact numbers. So, yes, the I agree with Mr. Mayu. The U rainfall rates went up a little bit. So, if we had to pull out that that push
the stamp portion of the entire site and say, okay, of that the um storm water increased by a little bit then we could also then go back and take into account well we also removed proposed
improvements from two of the lots so I don't have numbers to quantify that one you know um uh you know it's is the same as the other however we would we would ask that we would do that too to look at
how it affects the drainage areas to the basins >> and we would do that during resolution compiance just to see if we could >> well >> the area that's being removed is I think a different detention basin than basin one and six. Now overall when you get to
the final point of interest it may help mitigate but I think it's our office's um opinion that it's our duty to uphold the ordinance and and that's why we're suggesting to the board that the basin one and number six which take runoff
these new these reimposed 10 lots meet the new conditions. Now, I understand your concern about possibly meeting the recharge criteria. I just want for and it's it's a new comment. Um, we have found applicants in the township and even very poorly draining
soils have found ways to recharge it because as I said, we relaxed the allowable infiltration rate. Um, and so I I'm confident that you can utilizing your bio infiltration basins using the storage inside the stone at the bottom
and then using an upturned type of outlet under drain that it's my belief that you would be able to meet the criteria. Understood. And uh my only concern is is if in those particular areas we have
soils that do not infiltrate. Um I'd rather not have to come back to the board if we can't specifically meet that requirement because of that specific location. >> Well, we've we've worked with a lot of applicants and we're very flexible. There's other opportunities. I mean, some of these storm pipes could be
turned into a perforated pipe. >> Okay. >> And so it could be actually an infiltration trench. >> Okay. And so, you know, I'm saying that and of course it's always the board's decision. We're suggesting to impose this condition and we're be we want to be flexible as much as possible and find
engineering solutions to help you meet that condition. >> But it has to be part of resolution compliance meaning that you know we will try but if we cannot >> Well, but >> no, I that's I'm trying to eliminate we're going to try because I don't know how I can't work with we're going to try.
>> Understood. It has to be we're going to do A or B. >> And I'm saying I believe you can meet this condition with the flexibility of using lower infiltration rates, introducing potential infiltration trenches. You're not increasing costs. You're just converting say that 10-inch
pipe you're putting in could be a perforated pipe in a flat trench and it gives you an opportunity to infiltrate. >> Okay. >> So there's there's a lot of unique ways to address this. >> We'll work with your office to do what we can to comply. We'll work with your office >> and if we need to, we'll come back.
>> Okay. And if if it gets to the point where we need to do a new test pit or something, we'd like to make sure we get notified and someone from our office can come out for a portion to witness that test. Mark, are we are we talking about detention basin one and six? So, I see
six on the plan. Where is one? Is that is that the one behind lot 56? >> Unfortunately, this planet I have here does not label >> on A3. Just so I understand what detention basins we're talking about.
>> Craig, I believe it's just behind. Yeah, you had it up. It's behind. So, you can see it on CO7, Craig. I believe. >> Yeah. >> Behind lot 556. Okay. >> Yes. That's one of the basins. that's impacted.
>> And then C6 is the one that's over by lot 49 and 50, >> I think. >> Um, >> A2. >> Yeah. Go to sheet C11, Craig. >> Okay. >> Yes, sir. the my point is that they're relatively
small basins compared to some other ones. So I don't think that from and I'm not an engineer. I didn't stay the holiday in, but I think that >> was >> I think we're not we're not trying to change a lot here in in my opinion. Just
>> But I'll let Mark and you guys see what you >> Thank you. >> Um Mr. Chairman, I had one other comment that didn't make it to the my review letter and it was based on a phone call I received today from the in-house
township engineer uh Mr. Tom Bellinger and he asked me to make a note this evening to remind the the board uh that the township has a um stormwater management maintenance fund. Um, and he
asked that the board uh remind the applicant that there's a fund to contribute to. Okay. >> It's noted by the applicant. >> Yes. >> Okay.
>> That's all, Mr. Mayhem. >> That's all we have. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> And that's all we have as well. Um, thank you very much for your time this evening. We concur with Mr. Mayhew and we rest our case.
>> You sound just like David. >> Mr. Bernstein. >> Miss Elgard, for the record, the applicant is committed to no more than 196 homes in this application. Correct. >> Correct. and that there will be no
further applications for any further homes in this phase of the application. Correct. >> We'll have to wait and see, but I can't commit to you know that >> it's in this phase. The phase of the application
>> this phase of the application was up to 198 lots with 10 excluded when the board approved back three years ago. >> Correct. And now you're in and basically the 10 lots are going to excuse me are going to
become eight residential lots. Correct. >> I'm sorry. No, it's going to be the 10 lots were excluded. They're now back as 10 lots. >> Sewer service area, but only eight of them will be eligible for residential units.
>> No. >> Then how are we only building 196 homes on 198 lots? Two of the lots are being excluded. Are they not? Pursuant to >> the 198 original application already was
did not include two open space lots. >> Is that what you're referring to? >> If if I may, it's we have to kind of separate it. >> Right. >> So, we started out with 198. We removed the 10 and we went down to 188.
>> Well, for the purposes of the record, >> you didn't remove The 10 the 10 were removed during the application because there was no sewer service area. It was not within it was discovered during the
pendency of the application that the lots were not in the sewer service area. So they were not removed. They were taken out because they couldn't meet the requirements for sewer for residential lots. It is my understanding that they
have now been reincluded by a separate application to D that allows them now back in the sewer service area. Is that correct? >> Correct. >> For the 10 lots >> for the 10 lots. >> Now, the two lots that the additional
two lots to go from 198 to 196 are are not involved with the 10 lots that we're bringing back in. They're involved with lots that were originally approved. They were in a sanitary sewer service area, but had to be removed because of the regulated area identified
by the D. So those the two we're removing are separate from the 10 we brought back in. >> That's the one. >> How many residential lots on the property? >> 196 residential lots and there are two
other open space lots that have not changed from the prior application. >> Right. So the maximum number of residential lots to be built in this phase is 196 and the applicant is not going to come in for any more in this
phase of the application. >> We don't anticipate coming in for anymore. I'll let the record and the resolution stand for themselves. >> Can I revisit lot 55 again because the landscaper in me is getting bugged out
by this this lot here. um aka Durky. Um just from a standpoint of creating a livable lot the way that I mean unless you're building a very substantially smaller home here compared to all the other ones. Um
I I don't know how you able to move it up and stay within your buffers or move it to the side, but I mean how how do we address a usable home being built on this lot? If I can call Ron all back to address your question.
>> Yeah. >> Yeah. So, when this came up, um, >> have a seat, Ron. >> We realized when when this came up just earlier, uh, obviously there's an issue here. Um, you not not just from the constructibility of both the house and the wall, but from a livable backyard,
as both you guys pointed out. So, we would go on record to say these lots that are shown on here are 50 by 50 building lots for all for buildings, residential houses. This lot would simply have to be a 40 foot deep house maximum. And we would live with that
condition as a record to make sure that there's ample room for geogrid and there's ample room for access around the house for not only people live there, but to your point for maintenance and landscaping. So we would bump that back wall up 10 feet closer to the road because to your point, we can't go sideways because of setbacks. Can't go
front ways because of setback. The only way we could do is reduce the size of the footprint, which is what we'd go on record and say we'd reduce it by 10 ft. And that gives you enough room for all the concerns with the wall and the ability to access around the site. >> We put that on the record that that lot that house has to meet that standard.
>> Lot 55 will be 40t deep maximum. >> Okay. Thank you. And if I may next, if don't don't go anywhere because because I I have I have some issues with lots 50 and 49
which involve the property line move. So, I don't know who wants to address this, but I'd like to get some um some distances because if I How much smaller was lot 50 made
from the lot line move and I'm looking at C6, so I don't know if you have it on something on a different um map. >> Um >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. But I I just want to know in in actual numbers how much smaller the lot line became.
>> Yeah. If you if you refer to Mr. Koi's letter of July 16th on page three, um he has a chart on there. I don't know if you have it handy. If not, I could hand you my copy to look at, but >> uh I'm sure I can find it eventually,
but Okay. Um so on on his memorandum on page three it talks about lot 49 what was approved and what's proposed and then lot 50. So lot 49 which is what I'll call the the wetland lot u was approved the a little over 12,000 square
feet and it jumped up to 19 because now it obviously includes some of the wetland area. The lot 50 was uh 18737 and was reduced down to 11260 uh when that red line got moved over.
>> Okay. So on lot 49 it looks like a good portion of the if we're looking at the lot from the street to the right a good portion of that is part of the wetlands now. >> That's correct. >> Correct. is they
>> excuse me. >> Sorry. >> Well, right. Right. But a good portion of that is wetlands that's now part of that lot. Is there any conservation ease conservation transition area on that wetlands or it just goes wetlands line and it's over?
>> That that is the limit of the disturbance and buffer area. It won't go any closer to the house. >> Right. So is there a designated distance for buffer area as opposed to wetlands? >> That green line includes the wetland, the dark green line you see that
includes the wetland and all buffers associated with it. >> Okay. >> Limit that. >> So how far how far is that buffer going to be from the structure? because it looks to me like there's there may be 20 or there may be a significant distance
between the building and the lot line, but how far is the distance from the building to the conservation to the uh to the wetlands? >> It's about 10 feet or so, maybe a little bit more, a little bit less. >> So, along the same lines as we were just talking about for the for lot 56,
>> it seems like that's an awfully small area to be putting a house on for with that distance for a potential owner's future use. So, I'm wondering if you can agree as well that the size of the house on that
lot needs to be significantly smaller to have a more usable side lot, a side portion of the of the house in the lot. If it helps, Mr. Herman, couldn't you rotate to lot 49, the footprint for lot
49, and then testify that you would maintain a minimum of a 10-ft usable sideyard? >> Yes. >> Right. Does that address your concern, Mr. S? Sort of. It just seems like 10 foot is awfully awfully small area
considering that the distance from the structure line to the actual property line is considerably more. It's unusable space with the wetlands. >> Well, is there not a wall >> next to the dotted lines or is that just some
drawing where it says S2? >> There is a wall right here. >> There's a wall. Mr. Herman, could you provide >> So, how close to the wall is the structure >> right now? It's like I said, I think
it's around 10 feet, maybe 8 to 10 feet to the wall. >> That's what we have now. If we >> rotate the house. >> So, the issue isn't even the buffer line. It's the wall which is even closer than the buffer line for the wetlands.
>> So, could I amend my question for you to testify? Would you provide 10 feet of usable side yard up to the wall? >> Yes. And for the record, there there are subdivisions where 10 ft is
the sideyard setback. So it's not an unusual number. >> No, I I understand that. I I just wanted clarification on the distances. Uh because based upon the map, based upon the diagram, you really can't get it. You have no no point of reference for
the distance. And they're not shown there, but I'm assuming driveways are coming straight in to the house from the road just to a corner of the of the house. Is that proposed driveways? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Thank you. One one thing I picked up on was with
respect to lots 48 and 47 and the magic word open space was used. Um might be something for us to consider in the future as a township is that did anybody else's ears prick up
when they heard that or not? >> Well, it's open space. call it what you want. Um, so might be but but also building on what Mr. Radits was saying, the owners need to know that they can't build on on
48 or 49, I mean, can't do anything with that. So, you know, an owner can't go in and, you know, suddenly start doing something where they shouldn't be. So, I I I know he mentioned deed restriction, but otherwise make sure that that the
property is the use is restricted in the uh >> mayor if I if I may um to your point um I can't answer the open space because I'm not sure how it works >> we'll figure it out >> you know whether it's dedicated to the state if it could still be dedicated to the town but we can work that out because that's doesn't matter to us but
to your point as part of our D permits that we received uh all the buffers transition areas that we have on our approved plan including this one are required to have the post rail fence that I spoke about with additional signage. So, it's not just a deed restriction that's going to get
lost in somebody's safe somewhere in somebody's attorney's office. It'll be posted out there. We're required to post it out there and then make sure it's maintained. So, that's throughout the entire site, not just lot 49. >> Okay. Thank you. >> You're welcome. >> Any other comments?
>> I have a motion open to public. So move it. >> All in favor? >> I >> I Okay, we're going to do this in order since you're already sitting down. >> If there's anyone that would like to uh question
on testimony, please come forward. >> That's Mr. Alenback's testimony. We'll make Mr. Herman >> available next. >> Okay. Any takers? Come on up. No need to sit and wait. Just come on up to the mic. State your
name and address for the record. >> Maria, January 6, 720 East Frick Avenue, Manville, New Jersey. Also, Hillsboro Township property owner. Uh, it's going to be confusing now to see what was what was uh uh testified by Mr. Alen and what
was from Mr. Herman. Um, >> you got to speak up, Mrs. J. >> Okay. uh plan. These plans were uh shown um and it was com commented as to who prepared
them but it was difficult to hear who who prepared these plans. >> It was PSNS. >> Who? >> It's PSNS. >> PS P as in Paul S as in Sam and S is in
Sam. What is that? >> Oh, sorry. >> Do you want to spell it? >> It's Paulus Sakaloski and Sarur is the name of the company. >> Okay.
And so, uh, CFI, they were all prepared by the same by the same, uh, >> the same engineering firm. Yes. >> Same engineer. Okay. I don't know what else Mr. Bach
um spoke about. Were there any change? What were the changes to these uh plans? Uh you gave a colorized colorized version. Is there were there more plans today than there were in the original when the
when this application was originally presented? >> That would be a question for Mr. Herman >> as to how many plans there how many plans there were. That's Mr. Herman. It's his plan set, not mine. >> Okay. Um, I'm confused. Mr. Herman,
you're from the from >> He's the engineer. >> He's the engineer. He's the engineer. >> So, think of just ask non-engineer questions. >> The company PSS, >> correct? >> All right. Well, then I'll I guess I'll wait until
Mr. Herman, question for Mr. >> Anyone else from the public that would like to question Mr. Albach on his testimony? >> You can come on up. You don't have to. Okay. I I think we're going to switch.
>> You're still under oath, Mr. Herman. >> Okay. >> Yes. Thank you. >> So, now if anyone from the public would uh like to ask Mr. Herman questions on his testimony. >> Mr. Herman is up and the clock is
running and unfortunately again state your name and address for the record please. >> Maria Janu 6 720 east of Frick Avenue Manville New Jersey. Okay. Okay. So, I had asked the question of um have these have the plans have the plans that were presented today uh the colorized
version. Is that different? Was there anything added uh from what was presented at the original um um application hearing? >> There were no plans added. Uh the only changes are what I testified to which is
the 10 lots that we've been discussing that the improvements were removed. We have put an X through those lots showing that there were no proposed improvements. And this one lot line shift that we show here on C6.
Those are the only changes that we made to the plan. >> Okay. So, um, the the the 10 10 lots that were, it's confusing. They once was said
removed or or or were they removed or they were just temporary thing? Um, >> so sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt you. Not well that's because questions were asked something was said they were moved were removed and they weren't removed.
So can you kind of clarify that >> the lots were never removed themselves. The the application always had the total 198 lots. Of the 198 lots we were proposing
uh proposed houses and associated improvements on 188. And we took the improvements off of the 10 lots which are shown here in the brownish color um because of the fact that they were not in a sanitary sewer service area.
Now that we got we obtained the water quality plan amendment. >> Okay, you put it back up for them. Now that we tamed the water quality plan amendment, those 10 lots that were there in the approval, we're just adding the homes and the associated improvements
back to the lots. >> The water quality improvement, what what what does that >> water quality management plan? Um, and what that is, that's essentially the the governing law over the sanitary
sewer service area. So, essentially, uh, those 10 lots were not in the sanitary sewer service area. We applied to the D to have those lots added to the sanitary sewers area. We received that approval and we're adding the houses back to those lots.
So, why were those lots originally not in the sanitary sewer uh service area? >> That we wouldn't know about. >> Wouldn't know. >> So, what's involved in getting them into the sanitary services?
>> We made application to the D. Um, it went through their review process for that type of an amendment and approved it. And >> so, they approved it. >> Yes. Um, okay. The question was asked about the
um 10in pipe and that Hillsboro would Hillsboro's requirements were or Hillsboro would prefer a 12 inch pipe. What is the reason for the 10-in pipe?
We will provide the 12 inch pipe um as requested by the engineer. If there becomes a situation where because of the elevation of the system, we can't provide the cover over a pipe that's required, we may need to go down to a
10-in pipe and we'll work with the engineer's office in case that happens. >> Okay. But my question is why why we were you originally why are you originally showing a inch pipe.
>> It was a design a design decision. The pipe had the capacity to accommodate the flow. So 12 in would also and we have agreed to make those changes. >> Okay. But there's got to be a reason why
uh you originally put 10 in for for what purpose? For what purpose? >> You said it was for design. for what? For design as far as >> it was a design decision. >> As far as what? Design as far as what? >> We decided to put a 10-in pipe because it had the capacity to accommodate the
flows. >> It had the capacity. All right. Correct. >> So then why why would it matter? Why would it matter whether it's 10 in or 12 in if it if it has the capacity? >> Because the engineer asked for the 12 in. It is a requirement of the RSIS and
we can provide it. What's the What's the RSIS? >> Residential site improvement standards. It's >> Sorry, I didn't catch it. >> I'm sorry. Residential site improvement standards. It's uh New Jersey um a law.
>> Okay. >> All right. Um talking about drainage areas and what was it? Roof leaders. We talked about roof leaders. Yes. >> So what what is that? >> Roof leaders are the pipes that come
down the side of your house that collect the water from the roof and direct it either to a splash block in front of your on the front sides rear of your house or to a um drainage system. >> And so where where so where do these
roof so these roof leaders would go and each house would have the same system where these leaders go to? That's what we agreed to work with uh the engineer's office on. >> What do you mean you agreed to work with them as far as what? >> Where those roof leaders will will um
train to. >> Okay. Comments were made with regard to number four. We will comply. Number five, we will comply. Number six, what was number four? You mentioned item four, but there's no information given as to what that item
>> item four is the letter that we received from the engineer. >> Item four is what? >> Comment. It's we're referring to comment four of the engineers letter dated July 22nd, 2025. >> And so why didn't you give further
information just saying saying that it's it's in a letter and you're going to comply? What are you complying to? So the letter states at number four, this office suggests the proposed driveways, water services, and sanitary laterals be provided on the plans and profiles for
board engineer approval prior to construction. And we agree to comply with that. >> Okay. And how about number five? Number five states sheet C54 sorry sheet C54 shows bio retention system profile view
with 24 in thick soil planting bed soil media bed while the basin outlet structure detail shows 18 in clarify and revise sheet C54 accordingly and we agreed to comply and will correct
the discrepancy >> so there was a discrepancy that to be corrected >> between two different sheets. Right. And item number six, >> the applicant shall add
>> seasonal the applicant shall add SHGW elevation, which stands for seasonal high groundwater elevation beneath each basin to cross-section detail chart to illustrate one foot minimum separation from bottom of basin on sheet. And we
agreed to comply to do that. Okay. Are these things that that should normally be done or is or or why is it now that you complying versus something that should have been done from the beginning, especially in an area where
you've got flooding and and and wetlands? And >> my experience is that it's typical for um an engineer or planner to ask for additional information if there's something missing. It's just a matter of course. Um okay so there were storm water
calculations. >> Yes. >> Um and I think it was mentioned that you need clarification regarding the impervious cover allowed. What is the impervious cover that's allowed?
That was the discussion we had relative to the impervious cover on each of the proposed uh lots for the houses and we used uh 25% covered as I had
testified. So in other words um the calculations were based on the area of the lot and 25% of that lot being covered by imperous coverage and that's how the calculations were performed. 25%
impervious. >> Correct. >> Um, are the lots all the same size? >> No, they're different sizes. They range range in sizes. I don't know what the sizes are.
>> Okay. Um, item number eight. What was item number eight? The applicant shall show compliance with the township's recharge requirements section 262-7 Hillsboro Township Code when reclassifying the soil for the 10 newly
added lots. This office recommends the outlet structure detail on sheet C-54 to provide some recharge of groundwater. C recommended detail below and we will work with the engineer to um figure out uh how we can get that done. What was
mentioned in there as far as what was being reclassified? >> The soil. >> The soil. And what is the reclassification? >> That deals with um essentially what soil group it um the soil on a site belongs to. And that relates directly to
the soil itself, what makes up the soils and the uh ability of infiltration through that soil. So what soil needs to be reclassified? You talking about each individual lot or
well the soil there in general? The storm water management plan was based off of the reclassification of the soil that was supported by the testing of the soil by a geotechnical engineer.
So, it's not per lot. It's based off of the site as a whole and our storm water management plan. >> And so, what was the original classification? >> I don't have that information with me right now. It's all in the report. >> It's where >> in our storm water management report.
>> And so, and so what were you uh saying in regard to your answer to item eight and the reclassification? With regard to the comment there, we said that we would work with the engineer, we would comply that.
>> So, who who would have information as to what the what the original soil classification was and and what the change is now? >> That's in our soil that's in a storm water management report. Uh, and the geotechnical report that um should be on
file with the board. Was that was that uh was that report provided for this for this application today? >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Online. It was provided to >> provided for today for the application
today. >> Yes. >> What is the name of this? Uh >> it's online. I don't know the name of the report. >> It's on civic clerk >> with all the documents from this application. >> The documents that that were being provided for the application today. Miss
Janusk, it is on civic clerk. It's entitled storm water management report with plans LR nine of 2024 amended 2025. It's right on civic clerk. You can find it. >> And that report was would show what the
original classific soil classification was and what it was and what it's changed to. >> My testimony. >> Okay. Uh what was item number nine? P658, which is the designation of a head wall
discharging to head wall 650. Oh, I'm sorry. P658, which is this the designation of a pipe discharging to head wall 659 has a velocity higher than 10 feet per second. The applicant shall revise the design to provide maximum
discharge velocity of 10 feet per second. And we will comply with that. And that pipe is where? >> I don't know where C658 or had 659. I don't have that plan available right now.
>> So, you don't know where the pipe is, but you're going to comply. Correct. >> Well, I don't know where the pipe is right now, but it's on my plan set. I'd have to find it. And I don't have that plan available right now to show the board. And item number 10, >> rainfall amounts shall be updated per
the New Jersey D 2022 regulations for drainage areas incorporating the amended 10 lots which drain to basins one, number one, and number six. And we agreed to comply. >> I see on my notes over here uh soils from C to D. Did someone did did you
provide that answer? That that's part of what you had asked before about the reclassification of soils. >> That's in our storm water management report. >> Okay. And the infiltration rates
um for this application can be lower than lower than than it says here lower I don't know what lower than than than Hillsboro is allowing a lower infiltration rate than the uh government
agency. >> I don't know that ordinance specifically. that was discussed. Infiltration rates below can be lower can be lower than uh I I didn't get all of that information, but I think that Hillsboro was allowing
a lower infiltration rate than uh I don't know which government agency handles that. >> Well, that would be Well, >> that's >> regarding the per ordinance. >> That's per ordinance. Yes. But what what government agency handles uh
>> in terms of storm water >> infiltration requirements >> in terms in terms of storm water management would be the New Jersey D. >> New Jersey D. >> All right. It says here test results for infiltration rates uh just said passed or failed. Is there going to be some
some more information given other than passed or failed? I'll have to look through the information we have and provide what we have to the uh board engineer. >> Provide what? >> Provide the information that we have to
the board engineer. >> The board engineer. Okay. Okay. The amendment to the plan must meet the 2023 storm water requirements. there's been a change in uh in storm water requirements as of 2023.
>> That's what we just talked about with regard to comment 10. >> Uhu >> and that we were going to comply >> and that's what we were going to comply with is comment 10. >> Okay. All right. But you also I think
you were um comments were made that the runoff from these 10 lots should be grandfathered with the prior lots. Is that what what your your uh >> No, we said we would comply with number 10. >> I'm I'm sorry. What are you What are you
complying with as far as number 10? >> Number 10 says rainfall amounts shall be updated per NJD 2023 regulations for drainage areas incorporating the amended 10 lots which drain to basins number one and number five. and we said we would
comply with the 2023 regs with regard to those 10 lots. >> Okay. Okay. Um question regarding this this this phase. Comments were made about uh
how many homes 196 homes that are approved in this phase. What does that mean by this phase? Will there be another phase? >> This is the west tract. I'm assuming that Mr. Bernstein was referring to the east tract as well. That's the next
phase. >> Was that already Was that already part of the original application? Would the east track be coming in before this board >> at some point? Probably maybe.
>> Okay. I know it's because because I thought the reason that you have this application before the board today is because of the 10 the 10 lots that were uh just included in the sewer service area >> that may or may not be a separate site
plan or a separate application. >> I thought the original application covered everything. >> Huh? >> For the west. >> For the west tract. Yes. So, the west west tract is going to have
196 homes. >> Yes. >> Correct. >> And then there's going to be an east tract >> at some point possibly potentially. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Yeah.
Any other members of the public? >> Okay. You're free. Yep. May I have a motion to close? >> Second. >> Second. All right. Let you guys sort that out. All in favor?
>> I closing. Well, thank you for everybody's time and appreciate the fact that everybody took a deep dive into the site plan or into the subdivision plan and um we would appreciate the approval for the
subdivision at this point. Mr. Bernstein, >> anyone else comments from either Mr. May or >> No, they already did that. I do that before I go to public.
The resolution, unless they have something to say, Mr. Chairman, be a resolution to approve the application of Eminem Realy Partners at Hillsboro LLC, file 21-PB-16-s, block 182, lot 11.01,
formerly part of block 182 lots 11 124 45 and 46 at 75 Hamilton Road seeking an amended preliminary and final major site major subdivision approval to add 10 single family dwelling lots back into
the subdivision plan now that they're part of the sanitary sewer area resulting in 198 total lots of which 196 single family dwellings associate improvements would be constructed on the
property as well as all the conditions and requirements of both the Penoni and the KO reports and the agreements as conditions of approval made by the applicant andor its representatives during the course of
testimony this evening. >> Thank you. >> So moved. The >> mayor has moved it. I'll second it. Any final discussions? >> Okay. Roll call, please.
>> Mr. >> Yes. >> Mr. Flag. >> Yes. >> Mr. >> Yes. >> Mr. Depp. >> Yes. >> Mr. Smith. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you.
>> Thank you. >> Good evening. Okay. So, good news for board members. We're off in August. That's it. But we will be back September 4th at 7 PM for but not everyone has to
be here because that's >> well um >> it's the core >> the five members five6 members who have to be here have to be here. >> Others can attend if they so choose. Right. and we are starting deliberations on Homestead Road LLC.
>> Right. So, so everyone's got five weeks to read up. >> Okay. So, with that, I will entertain a motion of adjournment. >> So moved. >> All in favor? >> I >> I Good night everyone. Enjoy the rest of the summer. We'll see you after Labor Day.