Let's say call the meeting to order tonight and um join me in a salute to the flag to the flag of the United States of America and to the stands one nation under
withy andice for all. >> Spinning around. >> That's me. >> I did do that. >> This meeting has been duly advertised according to section five of the Open Public Meetings Act, chapter 231, Public
Law 1975, the Sunshine Law. Notice of the 2026 annual meeting schedule has been provided to the officially designated newspapers. The township clerk posted on the township website and available at the Hillsboro Township Municipal Complex. Uh meeting and application documents and plans have
been made available on the township's website at least 10 days in advance of this meeting. Complete application files are available in the planning and zoning department for inspection in accordance with the public meeting notice. Can I get a roll call of the
members and professionals. >> Here >> present >> here. present. >> Here >> present. >> Mr. Hack. >> Yes.
>> He's in the back. >> Man behind the curtain. >> All right. Thank you. All right. Um, consideration of meeting minutes, we have none. Consideration of resolutions. Same. Planning board business. None. Business from the floor
for matters not on the agenda. So, open it up to anybody here for anything that's not on tonight's agenda. Um, you want >> Oh, yeah. Okay. >> Is it on? >> My name is Ken Baker, 452 Farm Road,
Hillsboro. Just for clarification, uh is this the time we should uh consider asking or suggesting things about the development >> for tonight's application? >> Yes. >> No, it'll be after they present what
they're going to talk about and then >> Yeah. I just want a clarification when it happens. >> Okay. >> So, you'll let us know. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Absolutely. >> You bet. >> Okay. Um That's all the business. Uh consideration of ordinances. None. So
tonight's application public hearing. Um Sukdev and Rica Congress file 21-PB-13-MSv 2025 ext-- request I guess extension resolution request. Uh this is um TOD 33126 with an
extension block 152 lot 3 Farm Road. Applicants are seeking a one-year extension of time for the filing of a preliminary and final major subdivision with seabbulk variance and waiverss from December 10th, 2023 through December 10th, 2024. A one-year extension of time
from December 10th, 2024 through December 10th, 2025. and a one-year extension from the time of December 10th, 2025 through December 10th, 2026 and requesting to amend the condition of approval number 18 contained in the
resolution dated December 9th, 2021 on the property located in the R residential zone. This had been adjourned from January 8th, 2026 without further notice. So, um, council
Mayor gentlemen, are we on? >> All right, for the record, Jim Stall, SHL, the firm is Boris Golden Foley, Venolo Himman, and Stall in North Brunswick. I've been privileged to be here before and on this
application I'm sort of feeling uh guilty making you all come out in a nasty night for one matter but at least it's not a snow night. Uh but please all be careful. The application is twofold and again I don't like to waste time.
One of the reasons is an extension through December 2026 and for the three-year period prior to that. Uh the the approval was in 2021. I'm not going to you know a lot of
things happened back then whether it was COVID whether things happened and my client uh could not get the uh project going. It is under contract now to a rather reputable uh developer. I have a
contract purchaser representative here this evening if necessary. But I don't I don't I don't want to I don't BS. It is what it is. I'm not going to bring up and try and fabricate reasons. It just could not get started uh for a number of
reasons and we're asking for an extension. That's number one. Number two is a uh correction in the resolution. Now again uh this is it was a mistake. I'm not blaming council engineering. I
usually blame myself. Uh which I guess I could maybe I didn't read the resolution properly. Maybe three or four people that should have on my side but it wasn't read and there was this uh diversion if you will in the resolution.
We call it paragraph 15 and paragraph 18. Mr. Ford will come up in a minute. I'm going to swear you'll swear him and I'll just ask him some questions. I think Mr. Mayhew is the one that may have found it. But anyway, there's two paragraphs. Paragraph 15 says
unclearly, you're going to give us an easement between the driveway and the lot 3A to the north of the premises in question. A. There is no lot 3A. There's a lot 3.01.
B, I there's no real room or location to put an easement uh between a driveway uh and 3.01 if that was intended. Uh and then so that's 15 and it it's really unclear and we think it's absolutely
erroneous. And then there's 18 which is clear and it does say you'll give us a 50 foot conservation easement on the easterly boundary of the project and that we can show and we can say that was
it. We don't know where this easement came uh between a driveway and the property and and Michael Ford uh who you're all familiar with. Uh no one can find it. We just think it was
a an error in in draftsmanship. Not not criticizing Eric's firm uh because I should have picked it up uh when the resolution came in for review. It happened and we just want to correct it. If I may, I'd call Mr. Ford, Mr.
Chairman, uh, and move on. That >> All right. >> Yeah. Thank you. >> I go. >> So, uh, Mr. Ford, can you raise your right hand, please? Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give before this board is truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth? >> Yes, I do. >> Thank you, Mr. >> Sherman. I'm assuming I don't have to qualify the eminent Mr. Ford before this board. >> I I don't know who you're >> Michael >> talking about who who No. Um
>> Michael Ford FD uh licensed professional engineer and planner in the state of New Jersey uh with Van Clee Engineering have appeared before this board on numerous times. >> Yeah, I I do do know Mr. Ford's
reputation. The obligatory your license licenses are all up to date. Yes. >> All right. I think is acceptable. So, >> and I and I uh presented the application in uh 2021 when the planning board granted approval.
>> Okay. >> Um and Mr. Stall has summarized our request. I think the only technicality is the reference between numbers 15 and 18 is inverted. 15 was the finding of fact in the resolution of approval that
was adopted by the board that does correctly reference what was discussed during the hearing which is the addition of a 50-foot conservation easement along the easterly track boundary of the subject site uh and also correctly
reference to the rear of the two lots that are at the rear of the proposed subdivision. This is a three lot subdivision. And um then in the um resolution conditions,
condition number 18 erroneously references a lot 3A uh and the conservation e easement being along the boundary of lot 3A. the um transcripts when I search them
and read them, there is absolutely no reference um to 3A and the and the transcripts are on civic clerk, but the transcripts do correctly reflect the finding of fact number 15 where I
presented to the board uh the results of our visit to the environmental commission where the environmental commission suggested that that 50-foot conservation easement be placed along the rear of the tract um and the lots to our east uh on
Dimmitri and um the uh transcript also accurately reflected the board's deliberation where the board's attorney summarized the
conditions of approval and correctly reflected The testimony that was given that was reflected in that finding of fact where the applicant acquiesced to the environmental commission's suggestion
that the 50-foot conservation easement be placed along the easterly track boundary. And I'd report to the board that uh since the board approval, our office has pursued uh addressing each
and every other condition of the approval, all the engineering conditions. And we have a recent review memorandum from the board's engineer dated January uh February 27th, 2026.
It highlights the conditions of approval, the items that have been satisfied which are numerous and uh what remains to be satisfied is um one description that we need to update because the utility easement
servicing the proposed project has been modified slightly at the suggestion of the township engineer and then also correctly reflects this inability to address
condition number 18 in the resolution because a there is no lot 3A and the conser conservation easement would not fit along our northerly boundary line
and I feel like I've spoken too much already even though it's not even close to 10 o'clock yet but >> um that's the substance of But uh we've uh actually uh secured the outside agency approvals not once but twice in
in some cases because of the time that has transpired since then and there was a point in 2022 where um Mr. Mayu's predecessor Mr. Decessa issued to the applicant the bond estimate which
normally is not issued until you have addressed all your conditions or it's one of those last steps. So it really identifies that the plans are of a um si a place in the approval process such that the quantity estimate for the
construction that's necessary can be accurately estimated and a amount of bond be uh placed to it such that the applicant then knows just prior to construction.
you satisfy uh placing this bond and the construction inspection fees with the township engineer and you start construction. But obviously now because of this typo in the resolution we're here this evening.
>> Can you I'm sorry. Can you >> Mr. chairman would be that the condition number 18 be deleted uh as uh an erroneous uh insert and uh with an impossibility quite frankly somewhere as
I said two or three times uh the mistake was made uh and you can point at me I don't I will never point at Mike Ford but my office we have a we have a a protocol so either me and my or my parallegal and that does planning. We
missed it. Uh and I think the best way would be to eliminate that that condition. >> Um so I'm looking at the resolution and I'm looking at 18 and and it says the applicants have submitted an application to the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection for freshwater
interpretation. So that's why I'm trying to >> Oh, I'm sorry. There's two 18s. There's an 18 finding a fact and an 18 which is a condition of approval. I had the same issue when I was rereading it. You have to go to the end of the resolution to find the condition.
>> Condition of approval. >> Page 11. >> Okay. Gotcha. >> All right. >> Yeah, it he just misspoke in the beginning on what paragraph numbers there are. >> Yeah. >> In the findings. But Mr. Ford, can I
just ask you a question? >> I got it. on the the resolution and the conditions. Aside from the fact that uh every that you believe that paragraph 18
misrepresents the lot the lot where the um the uh conservation buffer is supposed to be. Is there any other paragraph that deals with the buffer that's supposed to be at the easterly side of the property
>> or is it just 18 uh appears to have the wrong adjacent lot? Yeah, the the the page four, the finding of fact, uh I think correctly references
the applicants agreeing to provide the 50 foot conservation easement along the easterly track boundary, >> right? That's on the finding of facts, but that's not on the conditions, >> right? And typically the finding of facts are then accurately reflected in the conditions of approval. And I and I
understand that, but council indicated that perhaps >> number 18 should just be removed. >> But if 18 is removed, there's also no paragraph there that refers to the buffer on the easterly side from the
conditions. So you you so there's actually two corrections that need to be made if if we assume that the existing paragraph 18 is incorrect because if we take it out we still have to add in the
buffer on the easterly side of the property. >> Correct. >> Incorrect. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Two votes. >> So I have a second question though. Looking at the uh the site plan, having not been on the board when this application was originally presented,
can you tell me because I can read them when I have the full document in front of me, the paper document, but looking on online, can you tell me what the distance is from the driveway line to the northerly property
uh adjoining properties property line? >> It's about 25 ft. >> 25. >> Correct. Okay. And the on the south side of that the uh the what would be the new lot? I
think it's lot don't mind my squinting. Well, I don't know what lot number it's going to be, but on the south side of the driveway at that spot, um what's the total depth of that lot? >> 3.04. >> Well, that's the lot number.
>> Yeah. >> Okay. But >> hey, >> Mark's getting his out. >> What? >> I I'm I'm just I'm just asking what the the the lot 3.04 4 the um the depth of that from the what
would be the new street what the depth of that lot is >> about 145 ft. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Um because I'm just wondering on this this topic. I read over the the transcript as well and I will agree with you. I I
didn't see anything in the transcript that talked about a buffer on the north side of the street. Um but it would seem to me that with the clerical issue and having necessity to bring this back
before the board, perhaps one compromise could be if the if the entirety of the road just shifts somewhat south to provide additional space between the curbing and the adjoining property
owner. So if you said it's about 25 now and the resolution says 50 feet, the adjoining property owner could have read that resolution and said, "Oh, okay. So I'm going to get a little extra space. I can live with that." Now they're getting told, "Hey, as a lay person, this was a
mistake and we need to take it out and it's going to go back to 25." But perhaps as a compromise the whole street can be moved maybe five tt over to add additional buffer zone additional space between the
um the two prop the street and the property. Uh granted it would take away some some area for the lot 3.04 04, but that's a to be built property, so I don't think a subsequent purchaser would
be too excited or upset if they lost a few square feet. >> Yeah. Yeah. The the um and I understand what you're suggesting. uh in 2021 when I presented the application uh I think this topic was one of the
topics we probably spent a lot of time talking about uh and that is how the applicant already tried to develop as part of the design of the project an increased buffer because um
there was a prior subdivision uh proposed for this project. Certainly any approvals that went with that have expired, but instead of having a private road, if you will, shared driveways for the three lots, it was a 50-foot
rideway, and that public road would have been even closer to the northerly track boundary. The other thing I'd like to point out too is part of our prior application was some variance relief and and one of
those items of variance relief was the lot depth of the lot you just referenced where the required minimum depth per the town code is 150 ft. We shifted everything about five feet to make it a
little less so it's at the 145. So one of the aspects of the prior application included relief for that lot depth for lot 3.04 04. And then maybe and then just the facts. Uh since the uh last
application when this error was discovered um in trying to satisfy all the other conditions of approval for the project, including storm drainage details and so
on, um Mr. Mayu's office asked us for a supplemental drainage report to prove that the uh project would not result in any negative storm water impacts on our
neighbors to the north. And it was not just a drainage report for the entire project, but actually a standalone separate supplemental report that dealt specifically with that issue. And
um in in addition to that, Mr. May's office and and his landscape architect specialists dealt with our landscape architect specialists to beef up if you will that buffer in that 20 foot 25 ft that's between the driveway and the
norly track boundary where the original resolution you might be looking at the rendering and I and I can uh pass it out that was used in 2021 basically had like a um
a street tree uh soldiering, if you will, of of street trees along the driveway as if the driveway uh was like a private road or like a public road that would have street trees along it, but not a substantial buffer between the driveway and the neighbor. Um since
then, that landscaping has uh been substantially enhanced uh with additional plantings. So, and I know what you're saying. It's it's I understand it's really a
>> Well, and you answered my next question because I was what I'm looking at um is just a site plan um and I didn't see that in this current package the landscape um information. So, you just provided it. So, it's going to be So,
there's going to be plant, excuse me, plantings along that property line. >> Correct. >> Um, okay. All right. That's all the only question I have for now. >> I may have more. >> Part of the application is storm water
management. There's uh the the uh the road, if you will, along that p property line. uh is uh going to intercept all the runoff that naturally goes from our property traversing in a northerly
direction toward our neighbor. Intercepts that unlike a lot of residential private driveways, especially one as long as this, this one is going to have curb along it. So, it ensures that the runoff is captured and directed to the on-site storm water
management facility. The on-site storm water management facility not only includes an underground uh subsurface excuse me smallcale subsurface infiltration basin that's the technical
phrase uh it's referenced in the NJAC 7 semicolon 8 but it also includes and that's for quantity uh control it also includes water quality measures with um MTDs that provide for treatment of the
storm water runoff from the motor vehicle surfaces. >> Okay. Um normally do we go professionals and then deis or does it see if I mean does
>> so u Mr. Mayor do you have any questions? Does that conclude? >> Yes sir. >> Mr. Yes. And in addition to the amendment of the resolution, certainly you can add uh a condition that we would comply with
uh the Pinoni Mr. May's review memorandum that I referenced just a moment ago dated February 27th, 2026 because it includes
um the request for that supplemental landscape along that northerly track boundary which was not on the original plan nor in the resolution of approval. But we've already added to the plans and we're not taking it back. Uh, and I
think you know in discussions with your board engineer to protect the board that that stays as has been presented by the applicant that could be that would be um
provided for by making the compliance if you will. The original board approval reference the memos that were existing at that time in 2021 from the board engineer. Since then, now we have a February 2026 review memorandum and
we're agreeing as any amended condition of approval this board may grant to to satisfy that memo as well. The few remaining conditions that are in there. >> Um Mr. Mayhew, you have any
>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> Well, as as Mr. Ford has pointed out. Um first of all, our office has does not have any information that would would count um the claims of the applicant's
attorney or engineer concerning the um northern buffer. Um and as Mr. Fords pointed out, there's been two major items that our office has requested and they've provided so far. One of them was a supplemental stormwater management report to identify
specifically the runoff um heading towards the adjoining northern lot and their office has provided that report and documented that they are not increasing runoff in the postdevelop condition. Second item that our office had asked
was to provide a substantial evergreen landscape buffer along the northern property. That was not part of the original condition either and their office has submitted that. It's in the set of plans that we've been reviewing and our landscape architect has has uh
verbally approved it. So, as Mr. Ford mentioned, if there was any approval tonight, we would want to make sure it's conditioned upon our latest review letter. Um, I guess the last thing that I would add, and it's always dangerous to think on
the on the move, but to react to Mr. I forget Bob, was it you talking or Bruce? >> Bruce, >> Mr. Rodovich's concern about possibly trying to shift the road over. I
I don't see an opportunity to decrease the proposed lot 3.0. 04. As Mr. Forge pointed out, there's a limitation on lot depth. Also, um that lot's already proposed at the minimum lot size. So then you would have
to move another lot line to to maintain a minimum one acre. Um but and I'll just throw this out for Mr. before to think about the proposed 25- foot wide shared drive
um already exceeds RSIS standards. It's not going to be a public road. Um maybe there's an opportunity to decrease the width a little bit. Um it's curbed, so I don't I mean I I would
have normally thrown out a number like 18 feet wide for a three lot subdivision that's going to share a driveway. 18 would be sufficient, but when you introduce curbs, that makes 18 feet tight. So, I probably wouldn't recommend
less than a 20 foot wide cartway with curbing or even 21. Um, I know that's only moving the c the curb maybe three or four feet over, but if it was the boards, and I would ask
Mr. afford to think about that because it's dangerous to jump to conclusions. But maybe that's an opportunity to to help a little bit and that's that's the limit of our comments right now. Um,
is the road with something that you that would be entertained? Granted, it's a couple feet. I'm looking at the uh the applicant or prospective purchaser. Um you know from an engineering standpoint uh you know
that would uh it narrows you know you this would be two cars passing each other but certainly you know there's room in 18 ft. One other thought and I'm getting a chill thinking about it because he's right. This is dangerous thinking about
it on the move like this, but I feel like I do this so often here. >> Well, I would >> I can remember being in the audience resketching a whole project. >> I wouldn't go less than 20. >> Yeah, I was going to say maybe the other thing we could do too is uh instead of
soldier straight up curb, we do the >> the angled backb curb >> kind of softens it. So, so, um, you know, that would and it would it would uh we could we we already um uh
are not centering the driveway, if you will, in like the 50-foot space between lot 304 and the northerly track boundary. That was part of my testimony at the the 2021 hearing to try to keep the driveway further away from the
northerly track boundary. So the the the narrowing of the lot the driveway would could be accomplished just on one side right to to take all the four feet from the north side of the driveway. So there's no magic there either
>> as far as Mr. Mayhew on the proposed evergreen buffer since I haven't seen a landscape plan. Is it proposed to put it um soldiering or offset uh on a burm? What is what was the proposed uh evergreen planting?
>> Um there's no BM proposed. >> Okay. >> Um there's not a lot of room if if we the the roadway is higher than the property line. So the proposed edge of the roadway is anywhere
from three to five feet above the northern property. that kind of limits the ability to to go uphill with a burm and then back downhill. >> I'm just asking just since we haven't seen a plan.
>> So, is it what kind of what's the number of evergreens that is proposed on the plan that >> but the it's a it's a double row proposed >> um and it's you know our our landscape architect is very thorough. She's uh
requested a very nice mix of um red cedars, Norway spruce, white pine, um American holly. It's a whole mix of so it's not just going to look like a a barren uh >> it's a dense. That's dense. >> Yes.
>> And not exact numbers, but it's about it's over it's about 60 trees. I'm just adding up >> over how many feet? 100 feet the length of the >> I'm not trying to get in the way of Mr. Ford as I never do. I mean, you've got a pretty substantial >> It's about 250 >> buffer and
>> Well, I just since we don't have a plan, I'm just trying to get that out so we understand what's there. We don't have that with us. Okay. >> It would be, I think, closer to 300 ft. >> 300 ft. >> Yeah. From the whole northerly track boundary that we're talking about here is 295 >> and and it's the whole length that that the buffer is being
>> corrected. Okay. Thank you. So just to reiterate, Mr. I wanted to make clear I our office would not be comfortable doing less than 20 foot wide, but we do support the idea of the laidback curve. I think that's helps.
>> Yeah, I think the general preference right now is to keep the 24 uh the the substantial buffering that's being proposed. Um that's just to
uh provide for more fluid access from you have you'll have three residents sharing the driveway. That's that's the applicant's preference. Is there any any thought um for emergency
access? I know usually the fire department weighs in. Is this exempt from their input on width of Cartway? I you're I don't know the answer to that at this moment after 20 21.
>> Yeah, but I think that was based on the 25 foot. >> So if you're going to go down to 20, I'm assuming that would have to go back for their review and approval or recommendation. I'm assuming. >> Right. >> Okay. >> Right. Yeah. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Yeah. Certainly emergency. We wouldn't
want to make a change that uh was contrary to what the um township's fire official would want. >> Anything else, Mr. Mayhew? Good. >> No, Mr. Chairman. >> Thank you. Um Mr. Kois, from a planning
perspective, what do you have? >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um this is not going to blow your socks off. I I have uh I have nothing to add to this. Um I agree with everything that Mr. Mayhew has provided. Uh just to provide just a
little bit of of background to this uh as we're re reviewing for resolution compliance. We're basically at a point that we we couldn't go any further be because of this provision. And this is why the this is partly why the applicant
is is here asking for this uh provision. But in terms of uh anything else, I have nothing else to add. I have no questions for for Mr. Ford. >> Um okay. Um so for you, I'm trying to
remember. Were you the planning director at the time that this came through or was it your predecessor? >> It was my predecessor which also and for Mr. Mayhew, it was his predecessor. >> Right. So this was challenging in trying to make sure we
understood what was happening. >> Right. Okay. And >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> So I'm I'm kind of I'm I'm assuming everything but what we're here talking about is really
okay, right? As far as impervious coverage and all of that. There's no I I would think if you moving the bound moving the lines and all that would also affect everything else that was accepted >> correct >> three four years ago. So um do we have
any other comments from the deis? Anybody? >> I I do. I I have a question for Mr. Hack. Did your office have an opportunity to review your file for any notes um that
council might have had from the time when this original application uh was reviewed uh before the resolution was prepared to know whether or not he there was any notes regarding this buffer? I reviewed the excuse me, I reviewed the
file uh could not find any notes that would enlighten us on this issue. So, just like everybody else, we took a look at the uh the minutes, the resolution, and uh really couldn't find anything
else that would enlighten us on this. >> Fair enough. Thank you. >> Um, anybody else in the days? Sean's >> uh being that we're adding this buffer, I would like to put some sort of uh
maintenance guarantee or bond on the plants that they survive a certain amount of time and and or be replaced since this is a buffer that's being proposed. I don't know, two years, something like that.
if just so we maintain the the buffer for at least for chance. >> Yeah, the the uh the private driveway is shared and so is the stormwater management facilities and um that would all be controlled by a homeowners association with the three
lots. So there' be a mechanism in to even replace them too. So it's not on one property owner it's responsibility. Good. Anybody else? Um do I need a motion and
a second to open the public? >> Uh I'll make that motion. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> All right. So now, if the public has any comments for the witness, um, please come up and ask questions relative to
his testimony. >> Yeah. Hello, my name is Ken Baker, 452 Farm Road on the property uh to the north of this proposal and I was here in 20 21 and I was also here in 2006.
>> Stay next to the mic. >> Oh, I'm sorry. 2006. It's on >> uh and uh you know I know well I'm real concerned basically about the potential flooding uh and the storm drainage
proposal uh underground uh basin and I was just wondering if there's any other basins like this used in uh Hillsboro. >> Yes. >> Are they on flag lots? Um they're in all
you know many different scenarios uh residential, commercial okay and and the other question I had was there was additional I understand there was additional requirements
uh implemented this year in 2026 uh on uh changes to the storm border management system and I don't know if they've been included. They're more stringent if I understand correctly if
they're included in the underground basin or have you considered any of those? >> This would regulations. >> Yeah. No, this I think what you're referring to is the um
prior governor in January of this year um authorized changes to the state storm water and flood hazard area rules, but I actually and this is that that this project predates those rules.
Obviously, we haven't looked at those rules with regards to this application. And my understanding is that the new governor is actually already put a stay on those rule changes. So my understanding is that those rule
changes are not uh authorized at this point. >> Okay. I I I don't know what's been authorized or not. I just read something to that effect. And it was because of the environment and I guess additional rainfall that we're getting or
anticipated where this and I I forgot the numbers but there significantly uh it's to protect again it's to protect our environment and particularly on our street around my property since you know I forwarded some
photographs to uh uh to David you know and he was nice enough to share them with the engineer uh about the flooding that's going on just from now there's no impervious surfaces there yet but just from the the the runoff that we've
experienced from clearing of the land uh originally back in 2020 2006 there were 488 trees there that was from your office way back when
and Since then, I can't tell you how many trees have been taken down, but I know there's big ruts in that property. Uh, and and something has happened to the property as it is without any construction that's begun. And and my
concern is because I have a a well uh and I have a septic system, my concern is that if anything is undersized for any of this or during the construction phase that that my well or my septic
system is going to be compromised. uh and and that's a concern I have and I'm just wondering if uh if the new uh you know if your calculations your current calculations
are such that I know you can't guarantee nothing um uh but but such that you know I'm I'm looking for some remediation somehow from either the planning board or engineering to have some guarantee
And I know you can't say this will never happen, but if it does happen, what's going to happen is I have no more septic system. Now, I got I don't know what I'm going to do. I have no idea. Me and my wife are uh you know, we're not the youngest people on the block anymore.
And to to to go through that expense would be would be a real hardship for us. Mhm. >> Uh I also want to just clarify the buffer, you know, and I appreciate, by the way, you adding additional trees, etc. buffers. Uh and and I spoke to you
briefly before the meeting and you said you're putting a curb in and then I just heard some other discussion about a no angled curb and I don't know what the water retention is on a angled curb compared to a straight curve. I have no
idea. I'm not a an engineer. Uh >> it's about a difference of two inches. >> Two inches. >> Yeah. The the the straight up face curve is uh six inches high and the laidback curb would effectively make that about a 4 inch high.
>> Um and it's really it would um so and what you know we discussed before the meeting uh with Mr. Baker who's kind enough to speak to me about his concerns and um I think one of the aspects of the application that should
be a benefit is that the existing runoff from the applicant's property that now uh runs you know in a northerly straight northerly direction through the rear of his property is effectively going to be cut off by that driveway. That driveway
is in essence like a a dam if you will. it'll intercept that runoff. He he's he's right. The the trees right now in that wooded area have a different rate of runoff than the new house on lot
3.04 and the lawn that's there. But again, that same runoff from that area that be developed will be intercepted by that driveway directed to the underground basin. Um which is uh substantial.
the the analysis we did uh requires that we reduce the peak runoff rate for the two 10 and 100year storm. Um we didn't just meet the standards where the 80% reduction for the
100red-year storm is required and we're at 79.99. We're substantially below that and I can cite some numbers for the board if they'd like to hear it this evening. Um, so I think there's been a
um substantial amount of engineering that's gone into the design to not just meet the standards but also with a eye toward um trying to mitigate for even existing conditions where the runoff from this property goes straight through
the back of a neighbor's property. And part of the application too includes the extension of public sewer from a point north of this site uh beyond Mr. Baker's property where the the sanitary ends now. So it'll be extended across
the front of Mr. Baker's property and then into the site that that that's being developed. Um, so the public sewer is just past your doorstep now and now it'll be brought basically to the front
of your property. And what I would say too is that that um, having done a lot of septic work in the township if there was anything that would happen to Mr. Baker's property, he would his opportunity he would be required to connect to public sewer. If you have
public sewer within 100 feet of your property and you can get there by gravity, you you wouldn't replace a septic. you'd connect to public sewer, which I think would be probably the preferred option, but >> I'm getting too much into engineering here. It's >> Well, what I was going to say was once
construction starts, there's controls for runoff and and all of that. >> Correct. >> And so, if there's a problem, call the engineering department, but they'll put silt fence up and they'll control that to prevent any damage to your property. So I think that you know that that'll
happen once the that the it enters the construction phase and it enters the engineering department. So by all means if anything happens pick up the phone and call call the township. >> Thank you. and and and also the length of that driveway, you know, and somebody
else mentioned the fire laws or whatever. The driveway it is is going to be at least 300 ft long and I don't know what that means for your fire commissioner here or whatever. I think there's a regulation
and nothing's exceeded by more than if it's 250 ft or more, some other mitigation has to happen. But I guess that's up to your fire marshal here and they would have that say what to do. I I
by the way that uh change in that law it it was 210 and 100year storm events and now it's changed to I believe it's changed to 50 75 and 80% which is significant in the way I see this. uh
and and for the people that weren't here uh when this whole thing started uh there was a number of variances made and they were associated with a lot of the impervious surfaces the size of the lots uh frontages and some manipulation that
was done in order to fit uh the required frontage I think it's frontage uh to fit all these houses in this relatively small piece of property So, I I think that's all I have for uh
for Mr. Ford. I don't want to take any more of your time. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Any I think you might get another bite at the apple when it's general closing maybe. But uh um do you have anything
else for uh if there's nobody else from the public? Do you have anything else? No. Oh, wait. There is another >> Yeah. >> for the witness. >> No, no, that's >> Oh, no. >> Oh, okay. So, I guess Mr. Ford is excused at this
time. Is that how this works? >> Um, motion to close public. >> Well, I don't know. >> So, but will there be just closing? >> Right. We'll still do this. All right. for the Mr.
>> Yeah. Come on. Come on up. I mean, if >> Mr. Ford, can you take the hot seat again, please? >> Sorry, they got you. >> You were excused prematurely. >> It is kind of warm up here. some viewers. Yeah. >> Hello. >> Hi.
>> My name is Linda Baker, his wife, and I live next door to the um lot. And um that's adjacent to uh where our property is.
I understand that tonight's discussion, can you hear me? >> Yes, ma'am. >> Is focused on the 50-foot buffer. However, I need to be clear. This buffer is not just a boundary line to me. It is
the only protection between the development and my home, my well, and my natural drainage patterns that already impact my property. As I looked more closely at the impact
of this proposed buffer change, it became clear that this is not just a boundary issue. It directly raises drainage, engineering, and environmental
concerns that affect my property based on what I have already experienced on my land. And I have pictures, so does David. And that includes ponding
on my side of my house. When it rains, I get this huge pond that was never there before before the tractor came down to do the perk test next door all the way down and just took away all these
enormous trees. So, um I am very concerned that reducing or altering this buffer will increase runoff, concentrate water, and potentially
introduce contamination risks to my well, which I have in the front yard. Because of that, I need to understand how this proposal complies with New Jersey storm water and environmental
standards. I have some questions. How is one I don't understand how one detention basin is sufficient for three homes on this type of Lshaped
lot? Like what happens when we have another hurricane or huge huge torrential rains? Can this can this one basin take care of that?
>> So yeah, Miss Baker, just hold that spot and and let's have him >> answer the question. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Yes. Yeah, that's the way it's been designed. Um the just for um
information purposes, the the bonding the the the improvements that are being in installed uh that were that I referenced earlier that were in that bonding estimate from 2022
uh were uh close to $800,000. So there's substantial, you know, uh, improvements that are being done and most of that is is part of the storm water management facility. It's it's a it's a large underground
system that promotes groundwater recharge and then also provides for a volume of area where runoff can be temporarily stored and released at a controlled rate. And um the other aspect
I think of this design that that would be a safeguard for you, I think that the Bakers being just north of the property is that um that the design incorporates that break, if you will, where right now
runoff is able to run directly from this site onto the neighbor property and through their backyard. But that failsafe uh intercepting of the runoff with the driveway that's curbed and then
directs the runoff along the curb down to inlets. There's actually catch basins, if you will, in a in a three lot single family residential development, you normally don't see catch basins, like curbside catch basins to intercept
ground, you know, the the surface runoff. But the reason that that's the case here is that this really has been designed as if it could be a public road. But as I presented back in 2021, the
uh design not only incorporated the substantial drainage elements that would be associated with a public road, it also included a design that's unique in the sense that by being a private road,
it uh takes out of the town's responsibility the uh maintenance and snow plowing of that road. So, it's it's a it's in essence physically a private road or a public
road that's privately owned and maintained. So, it's not uh um a simple small residential driveway with a small drywall next to a house. >> So, it's not a township road.
>> Correct. And the person who owns the properties would be the ones to keep everything up. >> Correct. And and uh to make sure there's some uh asurances there, the township has
implemented a annual inspection requirement for any uh storm water management facility throughout the township. So the homeowners of this these three lots would be in a homeowners association that would be uh
responsible for that maintenance but also the reporting of the condition of the storm water management facility to the to the township. >> Okay. Where exactly will the water go especially during a heavy rainfall
and how is overflow being handled? >> Yeah, there's um the the basin is uh on the rear left lot which is lot
proposed lot 3.02 and the discharge from the basin is at the northerly track boundary of lot 3.0. 02. So that's beyond, if you will, the downgrade of your property >> in that L
>> right here. >> Yes, >> you're here. It's discharging all the way over here. How will runoff be prevented from being redirected onto my property when I am already experiencing
drainage issues >> that that back to the road with the curbing >> that's going to help >> correct? I can be assured >> that's the way it's been designed. Uh
certainly, you know, the we've seen uh over time that uh like like people have said, you know, the it's a hundredyear storm, so why do we have two of them in five years, but that's not the way it works. It's the
percentage chance of it happening with within a hundred years. Um, and again, I'm going to roll back to the the the abundance of caution that's built into the storm water management rules. And in this case, we haven't just met the
rules, we've substantially uh exceeded the rules. And I'll point out a number now that for the for the 100red-year storm, so that's the largest storm we're assessing. Um the uh basin has uh been designed to
reduce the peak rate of runoff not by the 80% reduction that's required but down to 64% of what the pre-existing peak flow is. So you can see it's not just a couple percent under the 80%
threshold but substantially below that. >> Okay. How are groundwater, groundwater and well protections being addressed in relation to this reduced buffer?
>> The um system the the the proposed storm water management system is uh got another element that's part of the storm water rules which requires a groundwater recharge element standard. so that that
we can promote uh recharge of groundwater and supplement it and not direct all the runoff at grade and not into the ground. So that's an element that we've complied with with the design of the storm water management system.
>> Okay. And how can this buffer be reduced when it directly serves as the only natural barrier protecting my property? >> Well, the the buffer hasn't been reduced
since what was res represented at the planning board meeting in 2021. Um, part of our presentation was that that we preemptively already placed the proposed access to the three
homes not within the middle of the what would have been a 50-foot rideway of a public street along the northerly boundary that was part of that I think the 2006 application that Mr. Baker referenced by uh another applicant and another
engineer and I presented that plan to the board at that time and when we uh presented the application in 2021, one of the aspects of that prior application that we made a change to was the shifting of the driveway further away
from the property line um to provide greater separation to the northerly boundary and again making it a private road rather than a public road that wouldn't you know, require township maintenance. >> If you can answer me this, this is for
the record. You can't I don't understand why you you can casually walk back on a condition that was already approved by simply calling it a mistake,
unless they were formally amended through proper procedure. New Jersey planning boards are governed by the municipal land use law. >> Answer this one. >> Pretty sure
the I I will try to answer that. Number one, there was no casual change. There was a an obvious mistake in the drafting of that one provision.
There was no and could not be because of impossibility the easement which was suggested with regard to adjacent to your property. There was no lot 3A. There's no room to do it. What was there is a conservation
easement. This is not pursuant to the MLUL an amendment to the application. It is a correction of a mistake. It has no impact or bearing uh as indicated by
Mr. Ford on any drainage uh either existing or proposed in the future. And if I may, all of this was something but I respect you and your husband uh was items which were were discussed in
detail in 2021. So there has been no and I'll ask Mr. Ford there has been no change whether material or immaterial with respect to this application since 21 to the present I'll ask Mr.
I'm trying to help not not obstruct. Michael, has to your knowledge has there been any change in the conditions of the property of the applicant or any surround Well no just this because you don't know surrounding that has changed
the decisions and testimony you gave in 20121. >> Yeah. No. and and what we're what we're discussing this evening uh that what we presented and what I think the board thought they were formally approving
back in 2021 hasn't changed. We're not we're not changing anything >> but it was on >> here. Let me let me say it another way is to >> prove that way. >> Well, let me let me describe it another
way. If if um if the actual condition that the board thought that they were granting was a 50 included a 50-foot conservation easement along the track boundary that we're describing the entire driveway would have been within
that conservation easement. So, I think what the board's action would have been if they really wanted a 50-foot conservation easement at that location would have been to not act on the application and send us out to redesign
the project because it would have been a re a complete redesign. I think what was factually represented at the board meeting that evening and Mr. Julian was one of the members at that time and he was uh I think the chairman of the environmental commission and we had just
visited the environmental commission prior to the public hearing at the planning board and during the the our presentation at the environmental commission they suggested that we add this 50-foot easement along the rear of
the two rear lots and that is coincident with our easterly track boundary and the applicant was willing willing to provide that even though there's no code requirement or ordinance that
requires a buffer between a residential use and another residential use that would have been applied to ask for that 50-ft buffer. >> Well, intent doesn't override what was approved on record, and I'd like that on record.
Um, you know, after clearing the trees when you had to do the perk test, this increased in imperous and disturbed surface runoff.
Runoff increases significantly. Soil impacts. Water moves faster. This is what happened again. I have on the in my front yard. I have a marsh. In the
right left, I'm sorry, left part of my front yard. I have a stream. I have a big front yard running down. I have pictures uh on my phone. David has pictures. But
how is that caused or created by this property? >> No, I'm just let me I'm trying to I I understand and I'm I'm I'm being polite and and I just asked you to reciprocate. Um, I'm just the question I have and I'm
not fighting with you is how how >> tell the board how since 20121 with the exception of of a of a a machine that came down there once. How did this create a condition on your property?
>> Oh, that's very very easy to say. >> Okay. Well, tell us. >> Okay. We have this big machine, huge machine coming down and knocking down these trees that are way up there this round.
We've never had this before in our yard. We've been there since 1980. We've never had ponding on our in our uh side of our yard. We never had a stream running down our front yard. We never
had a marsh in in our part of our front yard. This big machine, I don't know what they're called. This big machine comes down and he's plowing down these huge trees.
So, all the roots are gone. What is You don't have to be an a a scientist to understand. When roots are ripped out of the ground, they're dead. The trees are dead. What soaks up the water?
Nothing. Nothing soaks up the water. So, where does the wa where is the extra? It's not a sponge anymore. >> Let me Are you an engineer, ma'am? Please. Are you Are you an engineer by train? an engineer. >> No, no, I just want to please. Are you an engineer by trade? >> I'm a medical technologist.
>> I understand. Did you Did you engage an engineer to review this? >> My husband's an engineer. >> Okay. Did he issue What kind of an engineer is he? >> He's electrical. >> Electrical. Okay. >> I threw myself into research before I came. >> I understand that
>> I am a researcher. Actually, when I was a medtec, I was in research for Exxon. So, I'm a wonderful research. >> All right. Can Can we uh um move this along? I this we're we're not here to
rehear the entire application. We It does seem that since work has been done on the site that something has happened. The planning board is not really the place to address that. I would, as I suggested earlier, I would call the engineering department, call the township if there's flooding on your
property now due to work at a on a neighboring site that >> and that's against New Jersey law, too. That's trespassing. It's called trespassing. >> Again, take that. If you've got an issue, take it up with the township. >> And uh I am,
>> aren't we? The township. >> We're the planning board. We're here to over to to hear this application, hear this uh we're not here to revisit the application. We're here to address the this change in this correction >> change and everything. I'm also saying
and and you guys are >> you're just like me. You have homes. You You love your home. You've been there for so long. You've raised your kids there. Why should I have to live
live with this? >> Sir, council, are you >> are we stay? >> Okay, fine. >> But I don't think it's fair. It's not fair. And I thought this was all about
justice. So, are you trying to say, Miss Baker, I'm sorry. Are you trying to say that the trees were knocked down on your property? >> No. Next to us, >> correct? Okay. But that was a buffer, >> right? But that was a buffer for you. >> This is what happened.
>> And Mr. Ford, from your testimony, you're pretty certain that the new basin once it's properly installed would remediate that. It would catch that water before it even gets to her property. >> I hope so. Yes. >> Yeah. And there's landscaping that's
being uh planted. So, there's substantial tree replacement. Um, >> and also the road the road is could be a health hazard to my well because there's chemicals in what they put whatever
they're going to put down and it's not going to be concrete. It's going to be asphalt that'll seep into the ground and into my well. Well, one of the aspects of the storm water management system is uh water quality treatment. I outlined
that earlier. Um so the runoff from the road doesn't just go into the underground basin be before it does that. It trans it it um is drained through a water quality measure that
treats the water. >> I'm all for development. I'm not saying I don't want houses next door. I just don't want to live in a swamp. >> Understood. >> Understood. Miss Baker, be before you finish, I I know we let you ask a number
of questions about the storm water, which uh really is is part of this, but not really part of what's being asked. What's being asked is for a correction to the resolution that um from my view
in reviewing the records appears to have been a clerical mistake. But I want to ask you something and I'm going to leave it to Mr. Hack to to tell us whether you should be sworn in uh before I ask you this question or after I ask you this question before you answer. you were
involved in this from the beginning going all the way back to 2006 when there was a first uh application for this property. So, you're imminently familiar with the history of this property and what's been going on. The issue today is
there's in the resolution a paragraph that talks about a 50-foot buffer. It's separate and apart. There's nothing in the recital of the factual findings with relationship to that. I've reviewed and read the transcripts from the the final
hearing. There's nothing in the transcripts that refer to a 50-ft buffer on the Norly portion of the property between the driveway and your property. So, you've participated in everything. Do you have any information that you can
provide to this board on the question of whether or not a buffer was or was not considered and um included properly in the resolution? >> It appeared >> it's in the resolution. I understand
that beyond the document because this to me as unfortunately as an attorney this is a scrier's error. This is somebody made a mistake in in the language that they used. >> Okay, >> that's okay. My question though is
beyond that document, beyond that document, do you have any information that you can provide to the board about the inclusion of this type of buffer? >> All I can say is it appeared >> in the resolution.
>> I don't know what you mean by that. In the resolution that was adopted from this application, the the document >> you mean like on the map? >> No, the resol the the 10 or 15page resolution that was adopted by the board
that in paragraph 18, >> okay, >> of the of the conditions says a 50-foot buffer between lot 3A. It's in the resolution. My question though to you is very factual.
You've participated, I'm sure, from what it sounds like. You've came to all the meetings. You've paid attention. You've read the documents. You've participated. You've asked very good questions tonight. I'm sure you did it 5 years ago. But my question to you to help us
as the board to know whether this was in fact a simple mistake or it was in fact a determination of the board at that time to include the buffer. And my question to you again, because I want to give you every opportunity to tell us
>> is whether or not you can tell us whether there was a discussion amongst the board, amongst the witnesses, amongst you, your husband or anybody else that discussed that day a condition of a buffer between
>> this meeting. I did not attend because I had co >> Okay. But at any point in time, >> so I it it appeared that's all I can say is appeared to me. >> Fair enough. Thank you for the answer. >> Thank you.
>> Can I go? >> Yeah. Yeah. If you have more questions. >> Um, may I add something, Mr. Chairman? >> Yes. >> Um, when Mr. Ford was talking about some of the changes, we probably missed something that we should have added.
Um, when this plan came to our office for resolution compliance, there was a 15- ft utility easement on the north side of the proposed shared driveway that greatly limited the room for landscaping.
Working with our office and our landscape architects, uh, Mr. Ford's office has removed that 15- ft utility easement and placed it on the south side of the shared driveway and it'll run through the yard front
yard of lot 3.04 that now created 25 ft of unobstructed lawn area on the north side which their landscape architect working with our architect has taken advantage of and filled with landscaping.
Um, I see that as a great benefit from where the plan stood 6 months ago. My only ask of Mr. Ford and the applicant is couldn't we simply add to that now an actual conservation easement
to protect the landscaping we're proposing. >> Yeah, that's our intent to to provide the landscaping there. the conservation easement would ensure that it would stay there in perpetuity. >> Right. So I mean that's that's a great
improvement from the way these plans looked when they were moving through the approval process. >> Yeah. >> So really adding right adding adding this buffer landscape buffer on the north side of the >> it's significantly wider. >> What wasn't it wasn't there before.
>> Correct. >> It can't go away. >> Yes. Okay. >> Thank you. >> You're welcome. All right. Um, any other comments from the public? I don't think so. Do I have a motion to close?
>> Second. >> In favor? >> I >> I >> um So, where do we how do we wrap this up? Um, with a >> Oh, do we have So, so close for the
witness. Do we have closing remark or Last call >> last call for do I get closing from the applicant or from the last general comment about >> All right. So for the public if if there
are any general comments about this change for tonight what we're addressing here the uh correction just comments on on the correction >> move to reopen >> move to reopen the public >> witness just for the witness.
>> So still move to open for public >> second all in favor. All right. So, these are uh for the public your final remarks on tonight's issue.
>> Yep. >> I want to thank everybody uh for your time and really for changing some of the plan. Uh I haven't seen it. I tried to get on the network. I got on the network, but I mold and I couldn't
find any of these new plans. So, uh, I guess my final comments again were really to thank the board and and and everybody participating. Uh, and I really appreciate the tree mitigation and the additional buffer. Uh
I I just wanted to to suggest that uh we continue to have thorough reviews so that uh you know we're meeting any requirements associated with either the township's uh requirements
uh andor state requirements. And when I think of that, I think of the fire marshall and the the length of the driveway that's going going to be there and whether there's any obstructions from getting fire trucks in and out or
emergency vehicles. Uh but I I have a request to the board. Uh uh I'm going to ask the board if uh to required preconstruction inspection of my septic system and well uh and
document its current position at the developer's expense. Uh and the reason for that is if it fails under a certain period of time uh you know it and and and it's in good working order
now then I need some you know a liability uh to insist that the developer be held legally liable for any failure of our weller septic system that may occur uh
during construction and after it's complete. complete. So, that's a request from the board. Uh, you know, and I don't know if that's typical or not typical. Uh, but I really want my concern to be documented so that in the
event there is a failure now everybody knows that we we the homeowners do have a concern. That's all. Thank you. >> Thank you. Um, any thoughts on that or any any I know
well wells are sticky. We get and that's it's up to the the homeowners to maintain their >> maintain and monitor their wells. >> Um, so I I don't wells fail for all sorts of reasons. it's hard to die plus how old it is, you know, and uh so I I
don't know of any presence of doing any sort of inspection of a well or >> guarantee of of that. >> I don't think we can we can impose that on the on the developer, but um you're on record as stating it here and and should anything change, I would suggest
you come to the township. If anything goes wrong, you know, we're not the planning board doesn't address that. We're not the township committee. We're not the administration. If something does happen, call the township. Absolutely. Any So,
um I think the uh So, do I have to move to close again? >> Motion to close. Uh public. >> So, moved. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> All right. >> I think when I when I uh do you want to
make any uh closing statements? I I think we've discussed it and I I think the board knows what relief we're requesting. >> Yeah. It I think in summary when we when this all gets all boiled down basically we need condition we need resolution number 15 to match condition number 18.
That's it because condition 18 is the 50-oot easement on the and that's it. So, right. >> Right. The one one needs to it either just needs to be >> changed or one it needs to be removed and replaced with the 50ft easement.
>> Well, that's what I'm saying. >> On the eastern side of >> by by making by making res by making the resolution number 15 match condition number 18 or vice versa. >> It which is the 50oot easement. >> That that's all it that's all we really need to happen.
>> I think that's it. And then everything else has been a bonus and an ad to the development, the buffer, um, and the things that were discussed, the penoni memo. Um, I think that's all, >> Mr. Chairman, >> and I know that council does a an
excellent job. I just define it for the purposes of a resolution. We're talking about the eastern property boundary to be the 50 foot quote conservation end quote easement >> uh along those two pieces of property.
>> Yeah. Right. >> Well, there was also a discussion just a minute ago about the uh the 20 the 20 25 ft section north of the driveway. Yes. along the length of the uh 250 or 290
feet that that was also going to be considered a conservation easement um uh along the property. So that's going to be added as an additional um condition for the for the site. And your
suggestion, >> your suggestion of about 20 feet probably is a good number because the curb line is 25 feet from the northerly track boundary. So that gives a little land beyond the curb line to assure
someone doesn't say you can't maintain their driveway or >> Mr. Mayo, you would you agree with that? But you still preserve the trees that are within that buffer between the >> Yeah, I think a five foot safety zone to provide future maintenance of the curb
is is adequate. >> So that would leave you 20 foot wide. >> Yeah. >> And that and then that easement goes all the way up to uh the Baker's property. >> Correct. >> 295 ft. >> Well, exactly. Exactly.
and the and the extension of the approval. >> I don't know whether the board wants to consider two separate or did you want to do it all in one resolution? >> It's up to you. I have no preference. >> I think it's easier to have in one resolution.
One resolution. Uh so Mr. Hack, you want to sum can you summarize uh or we talked about a lot all the conditions tonight. >> Yeah. So what's uh being considered by the board
is a uh correction of uh the resolution specifically uh condition number 18. Uh additional conditions of approval are going to be compliance with the uh Mr. Mayhew's review uh memorandum of uh
February 27th, 2026. Um, and the additional and I'm I'm I'm I'm looking for the verbiage for the for the additional uh conservation easement on the what do
we say northern northern side >> adjacent to lot 3.01. Yes, >> there you have it. >> Um so, >> and the uh and the um plantings as
described with the the bond two-year um warranty or guarantee. >> Was that the penoni? Oh, the warrant the >> Oh, the plantings. And isn't also just getting a re reconfirmation from the fire marshal that the reduction in street size from
25 >> we're not reducing >> it's going to stay the same. I thought the street >> the 20 foot we talked about was the easement >> right. No I thought I thought the original street size was 25 ft >> and we're reducing it to 20. >> No.
>> Okay. Then I take then I take that back. >> It was 18. Maybe I could suggest that the the additional 20 foot easement not be characterized as a conservation ement because usually that's something that protects an undisturbed area. In this
case, it's a a landscape buffer easement if you will to guarantee that once the construction's completed and the plants are in there because that area is being disturbed in the sense there's some regrading in there. just I didn't want to have some confusion and be back in
five years. >> So, we're gonna a landscape buffer easement. >> Correct. >> So, if that's we're going to develop that resolution, I need a a motion and a second to approve.
>> So, moved. >> I'll second. motion. Yeah. Um >> any final discussion on this? Not roll call. >> Mr. Wagner.
>> Yes. >> Mr. >> Yes. >> Mr. >> U. Mr. Mrs. Baker. I want to thank you for your participation and your questions um and uh apologize to you for
the error that appears to clearly have been made in the resolution. Um and I think the results and of the amended resolution are beneficial to you and your property. Um and with that, uh I would say yes.
Mr. >> I'm gonna speak briefly. >> Um, it's a yes, but I think that the plan is actually better now than it was five years ago, whenever it was. So, I think that it's benefit to you.
>> Mayor, I may Yes. And thank you for your commentary and taking the time to come in and talk with us tonight. Mr. >> Uh, ditto for everybody else. Uh, yes. >> Thank you. >> And chairman.
>> Yes. And thanks to both the applicant for improving the uh what was here prior, correcting this error and and to the uh the bakers for, you know, being patient and coming back and showing your interest. And again, if anything
happens, call the township at this point. Um, and and so, uh, >> we'll be cautious. We've been put on notice and, uh, it's always helpful and I want to thank all of you and please
drive carefully, uh, on their way home. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Good job. >> All right. Thank you. Um, I think I need a motion and a second >> for an adjournment. And we have a meeting next week, March 12th.
>> So, a motion and a second to >> So, moved. >> Second. >> All favor. >> I >> Good night. Thank you. So,