All right. >> I'd like to call the uh Hillsboro Planning Board meeting of July 4th to uh order. And uh please join me in a salute to the flag. To the flag of the United States of
America and to the stands nation, indivisible, liberty and justice for all All right. It issue. >> Bear with us folks. Having an IT issue with a member. What's that?
>> All right, with everybody talking. All right, let's get started. >> All right, announcement. This meeting has been duly advertised according to section five of the Open Public Meetings Act, Chapter 231, Public Law 1975, also
known as 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's website, and available at the Hillsboro Township Municipal Complex. Pursuant to PL 2025
C72 starting March 10th, 2020 March 1st, 2026, municipalities are required to publish their public notices on the municipal website. The Hillsboro Township public notices are available at uh https hillsboroj.gov
backpublic-notices. Application documents and plans have been made available on the township's website at hillsborj.portal.civicclerk.com and they were made available at least 10 days in advance of this meeting. The complete application files are available in the planning and zoning department for inspection in accordance with the
public meeting notice. Uh our agenda includes currently includes an oath of office, but we're going to table that till next week. We have a couple of items to iron out. Uh it does not change the composition of the board from and we
can still conduct our business. Um so could you have a roll call, please? >> Mr. Deon, Mayor Payne are absent. Mr. Flag >> here. >> Mr. Sarra >> here. Smith >> here. Mr. here. >> Deputy Mayor Leani
>> present >> here. >> Present >> here. >> Mr. B, >> Mr. Mayhew >> and myself and the videographer here.
>> Okay, I multitask. Um, we don't have any meeting minutes to consider, nor resolutions, no planning board business. Is that correct? Um, so let's get right to business from the floor for any matters not on tonight's
agenda. So, if any people in attendance have anything that's not on the agenda, please come up and state your business. All right. Seeing none, we have no ordinances to consider. So, let's get right to the applications. The first one is public hearing on Specialty Assayas
Incorporated file 23-PB-16- SPV 2026 extended. Uh, this is block 67 lot 1656 Old Camplain Road. The applicant is seeking a one-year extension for a minor
site planned approval seabbulk variance and waiver through July 10th, 2027 2027. to construct an approximate 4,869 foot addition to the existing building for use as a research facility and related improvements on the property
located in the I1 light industrial and RA residential agricultural zones. So floor is yours. Is it uh Miss Kazinski? >> All right. better. Let me start over.
Uh Cara Kazinski of McNos Kazinski and Lime here on behalf of the applicant. Um you may recall we were here some time ago and received this board's approval with conditions of the project that the chair just described to you and since then we've been going through resolution
compliance. Um we had a little hiccup and change to the storm water uh design which has been uh submitted and uh we're in the process of getting revised Delaware and Raridan Canal Commission approval. That is one of the outstanding
items. Uh since we requested the extension, we have received county planning board approval or actually a letter of no interest, which is one of the other outstanding items. And then we recently received um from town council a request for a completed storm water facilities maintenance agreement which
we have also completed and will be submitting for approval. So really the DRCC is the sticking point here. Um they have asked for continued changes or clarifications which our engineers are in the process of doing. Um as of right now it does not change in any way the
approval that this board has granted. Um hopefully crossing our fingers it won't do that. Um but ultimately once we get the approval uh we'll submit that and if we need to come back for any sort of amendment we'll certainly do that but as of right now we just need the extension of the time period so we can satisfy
that condition. >> Okay. Um and that there's no nothing to present. Um just any comments from the deis? >> No it's just a third party outside agency approval that we're waiting on
unfortunately. Any any any comments from our >> So you're you're looking for the extension through uh July 2027, I guess, because the uh construction that bumps it out. >> Correct. >> Need that much time. >> Correct. I mean, hopefully we won't. I
would love to be able to report back that we've got everything finalized within the next month. Um that never seems to happen, but certainly I will tell you that my client is on all of us to get this done as quickly as possible. So, um, we're we're doing our best.
>> Yeah, I think it's better to build in a little, uh, uh, flexibility, uh, in your request and it saves you having to come back. >> I do appreciate that and that's the exact reason. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Anything else from the days
about our professionals? Um, I need a motion to open comments from the floor. Motion in a second, please. >> I'll make the motion to open. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> All right. So, there's any comments from the floor for the applicant, uh, from
the from the public, I should say, uh, please come up now and escape. All right. I guess second a motion to close public. So, moved. >> All in favor? Hi.
>> Uh, Mr. Bernstein, do you want to think I could do this myself, but uh, >> it's up to you, Mr. Chairman. >> So, I need a motion and a second to approve the extension uh, time of decision to not time of decision,
>> extension for a minor subplants and waiver through July 10th, 2027. >> All right, you can cut him a check. So moved. >> Second. >> We vote please. >> Mr. Flag, >> yes. >> Mr.
>> Yes. Mr. >> Smith, >> yes. >> Mr. >> Yes. >> Vitali. >> Yes. >> Deputy Mayor Leani. >> Yes. >> Vice Chair Pen. >> Yes. >> Chair. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Thank you very much everyone. Have a great evening and a great summer. >> Thanks. Good luck.
Okay. Um, next is 480 Hillsboro RDLC. Want to come up? I'll read the uh the file. It's uh file 25-PB-9-SV time and decision August 26, 2026. Block 203-10,
lot 29, formerly known as block 203, lot 4B. This is 480 Hillsboro Road. The applicant is seeking minor subdivision approval, C bulk variances, and waiverss to subdivide approximately 4.851 acres into three single family dwelling lots,
a new proposed lot of 29.01, which is 1.68 acres. a new proposed lot 2902 1.74 acres to be served by individual driveways with access from Leiden Drive with associated improvements. The
remainder lot the reminder lot proposed lot 2903 is 1.54 acres to contain the existing single family dwelling and retain access from Hillsboro Road on a property located in our residential zoning district. Um
this m Mr. FedEN >> Fidone. Okay. So, floor is yours. >> Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Michael Fidone on behalf of the firm of Singer and Fidon on behalf of the applicant of you've announced the uh the uh site accurately, so I don't need to
repeat all that. It is it is a a simple subdivision. I have um for my witness tonight, Mr. Ford. I'm certain you're familiar with him. I will uh do I'll follow your lead, Mr. Chair, as far as qualifying Mr. forward and his his
expertise. I do also have my clients here as well. I don't intend to call them as witnesses. I don't think that's really necessary, but I'm just letting you know that in the event that some questions come up or something to that effect, um they're certainly willing to testify if need be, but I don't uh have
any desire to make this go any longer than it need be. Uh without any further ado, then I'd call Mr. Ford to stand >> and uh Yeah, absolutely. My apologies. First time in Hillsboro. Thank you very much. Appreciate it.
>> Okay. As I was stating, Mr. Chairman, I uh my name is Chris Oieski. I'm from the firm of Savo Shaw in Somerville. My firm represents Mr. Foyer's neighboring property owner. He owns lot 25 within block 203.10, otherwise known as 48 Beverly Drive. We have some some concerns with the application that we'd
like to raise uh this evening. Uh particularly with respect to the applicant's notice. I figured I would rather than let the applicant proceed with testimony raise those now if that's you know within the the boards will want to let me do that. Um figured it would make a little more sense to do that at the getgo as opposed to getting halfway through the proceedings and then there
being a notice issue. >> Um Mr. Bernstein, what's we got a notice issue. Let's hear it. Let's hear. Okay. >> Okay. So, just very briefly, um you know, it's our opinion that the notice for the for this hearing is defective for for a couple reasons. Number one,
the notice indicates that quote unquote variances in waiverss are required to permit the proposed lots 29.01 and 29.02 2 to present deficient quote lot widths of 25 ft. So the issue with that is that uh we did review your board planners memo and he indicates that the variances
are sought to permit proposed lots 29.01 and 02 to present deficient lot widths at their front setback lines as opposed to just lot widths um in the uh calculated at 104.72 feet. So for that reason, the notice is at worst
inaccurate in that it doesn't accurately describe the nature of the relief sought and at best it's confusing as it doesn't state whether it's a variance or design waiver relief that's being requested in connection with the with the proposal. Um second another issue the board professionals respective review memos
were issued only yesterday and they both raised a number of concerns about the project. Um, as such, the public has not had an adequate opportunity to digest that information, seek the advice of their own engineers or other professionals to review the reports and submitted plans. My client, for example, would like to explore retaining an environmental expert to determine what
the impact of the proposed development would be on his property. And uh, just for those reasons, we uh would respectfully request that the hearing be adjourned, give the applicant an opportunity to cure the notice deficiency, and give my client, other members of the public an opportunity to retain professional guidance of their own. And uh, so that's that's my case.
Just figured I' put on the record You're seeking executive status counsel. >> That's correct. Uh Mr. B >> and you're representing whom? >> Uh client is William Foyer. >> Spell his name?
>> Yeah. F uh W I L L I A M. Uh Foyer, spelled F E R. And he owns the property at 48 Beverly Drive, uh block 203.10, lot 25. That's uh just for context, that's the property that sits at the northeast corner of Beverly Drive in
Lynon Place ordering the subject property to the west. >> Is he your only client? >> That's correct, Mr. Princy. >> Thank you, Mr. Fedun. At least on the issue of the notice, >> I I I beg to differ with council. I
think the the notice is entirely uh uh uh accurate. Uh it it says you know proposed lots the lot width where 150 ft is required 25 ft is proposed whether the lot the exact location of where that lot width is uh dimminimous or of no
real uh import as far as that's concerned. If somebody has an objection they're not going to object if if the if uh they're they're not going to how do I put this? are not going to not show up simply because uh they're confused if they were to be confused about the 25 to
the 150 ft that there that this council thinks it should say. The bottom line is the the objector is here. The objector had uh plenty of adequate notice. The case law is very clear. It's I if you have enough notice to show up, you have
enough notice. And so trying to point out things like what may be in what I what I would describe as uh hardly a technical deficiency. I because I don't think it's a deficiency at all. But if if his argument should stand as far as that's concerned, it doesn't make any
difference. He's standing right here. He can object and and so the the notice is sufficient because the objector is here. U as far as the uh you know just getting the uh comments of
the uh uh professional staff the day of or the day before. Well, we're in the same boat, you know, frankly, which is very typical of these types of applications. We have to have our application in within 10 days prior so the public can see it. And the, you know, the staff obviously has many more
applications than this application to address. And so there the memos come in when the memos come in and we address them. We are certainly prepared to address them. And I think as far as that's concerned, I would certainly allow the at the very least have the board flesh everything out. It may well
be that the that the information that's been provided and the uh discussion that the board hears tonight and it will be certainly enough to address any concerns in that regard. And if you know, frankly, Mr. Bernstein, if if anybody could raise the issue of
the uh expert uh the town's expert memos got in the day before, you guys would never hear an application on time because every every time there's an application before any board here in Hillsboro or any that I present applications, those memos come in at the last minute. That's just what happens.
>> Does anyone have a copy of the of the notice on them? >> I do. >> There's no questions from the audience, ma'am. >> Yeah. Hold on. No, I want I I would like to notice it's in the paper.
>> I I'm I'm going to ask the official reader of the >> I'm sure it's in here somewhere. >> You think I also also point out, Mr. Burton, the notice were deemed adequate and accurate
by the staff. >> I found the notice to be accurate, but I want to take a look at it because the issue is not whether I found it accurate because it appears to be what you're asking for. The question is, is it accurate for the purposes of
what's been raised? I guess I have to get on. >> Oh, here it is. >> That one. I want to see the one that was put in the paper because the one that's put in the paper is the one that matters. Everybody councelor for purpose of the record
Could you turn your mic on, please? >> Sorry, I thought it was. What part of the notice that I'm looking at is inaccurate? >> Uh, subsection B where it says variances and waiverss required. >> It's not necessarily that's inaccurate, but it doesn't accurately describe the
relief that's being sought. You said uh see B1 proposed lot 29.01 lot width where 150 ft is required and 25 ft is proposed. >> Below that proposed lot 29.02 lot width where 150 ft is required and 25 ft is proposed. >> Now um
>> you missed the last sentence. Yeah, I I understand the catch all is there, >> but nevertheless, >> your office is better than most, >> but uh nevertheless, it's not accurately indicating what variances are actually required as per the board professionals.
>> The board professionals report is Mr. Mayu's I believe >> actually >> or Mr. Kis >> Mr. Kis points out the specific variances being sought. He indicates that there are
by the way Mr. Ko's report says there are three bulk variances and then says two. Uh but leaving that aside for the moment basically he indicates the necessary requirements for a
hardship C1 or a flexible C or C2. Is it your contention that the notice fails to delineate that? >> No, my contention is that the notice doesn't accurately describe the variances that are requested or that are necessary.
>> He it's his deter it's his belief that the lot width on both properties uh cannot meet the requirements but the number of feet 25 versus 104.72 is the issue
because Otherwise, I'm trying to understand where you're contending that this is not accurate. >> The applicant's notice says lot width 25 ft is proposed. Your board professional, Mr. Kois's memo says minimum lot with setback. Those are the variances that
are needed, 104.72 ft proposed for both 29.01 and 29.02. >> Mr. Bernstein, if I may point out, one is for the setback and one is for the front of the of the lot itself. And the ordinance links the two. Um, your ordinance links the two. >> I'm looking at you. You have Mr. uh
Quis's report, council. >> No, I'm talking the objectors. Council, you have Mr. >> I'm looking at it right now. >> All right. Where in Mr. Kis's report are we referring to? >> Page two, the table in the middle.
>> Uh, third uh Third row down. >> Mhm. >> Second row. Third row across. Second row down. >> He says there's a variance required for minimum lot width except back
>> on both lots. >> Correct. >> As opposed to the notice which just says lot width and gives it completely different. It's It's missing the words at >> setback. >> That's one. >> Right.
>> And there's notice says 25, >> right? 25. >> I understand that. >> Which is why the 25 didn't end up in my report. >> Well, that's I'm trying to ascertain what I think is the issue. Not only that, for what it's worth, as I
was saying, the uh the notice says variances and waivers required, and it doesn't delineate whether these are variances or waivers or both. I mean, I guess that's it says one or the other, which is something, but certainly not an
completely accurate uh description. So the argument is that instead of you if he had used the word variances andor waiverss required would we be having this conversation? >> Have you he said variances
>> andor waivers because he's asking for variances and waivers? >> I understand. I I don't see where there's any waivers on this list. >> Does there have to be waivers on the list in order for the notice to be inaccurate? >> Not necessarily. But if you're saying
variances and waivers and you have items listed and you don't indicate whether they are variances or waiverss, it's not entirely accurate and it could create confusion for the public. That's my contention. >> Councelor, you want >> a couple things I'll point out that Mr.
Koy's letter of April 28th indicates that the 25 that that the request is 150 ft is required and 25 ft is proposed. That was in the April 25th letter. the the uh memo that he produced for us today um says says differently. He says
10472 feet 72 feet is is requested. Depends on if you're measuring it from the front or at the setback. >> Well, I I believe it's his and he can correct me if I'm wrong. He got that from your client's plans. >> That's correct. And the ordinance links
both the setback and the the width of the lot at the setback and the width of the lot at the front of the lot. The bottom line is again C Mr. Bernstein the objector is here. The notice the notice brought the objector here and if the objector has an issue as to the wid
lot wid lot width or what have you. We're happy to hear it. That's why the notice is the notice of design and say this is what we're doing and if you have objection please come. So there they are and it's done it's done what it's supposed to do. there's a room full of
people who have issues or what have you. >> So, the notice has been effective. There's no question about it. And if you want to say and or waivers or and waivers, some sometimes when I'm before boards, boards add a waiver that could or could not be a waiver. Are we going
to start that hearing all over again because someone says there's a design waiver that was missing? That's why the catchall is there. The bottom line is, and you know, I'm I could quote extensively from from uh Cox, bottom line is it's notice. They're here, and that's what you're talking about. The
objectors here, they probably have some very interesting arguments they want to raise. I' I'd prefer the board got to them. They're here. >> Mr. Chairman, if I may, I just would like to clear things up. My April correspondence had to do with
completeness and the report. Let me see dated June 3rd. That's our planning and zoning review. That's our full review. My April was basically just reviewing completeness. We weren't diving deep into
everything uh just >> for the board's edification. Based on that argument, and I'm not necessarily agreeing with it, then the argument would be that the report that would have to come out of your office would have to be done prior to the promulgation of
notice to make sure that the applicant can rely on something different if the notice is different. But I don't see it being an issue one way or the other in terms of which ended up in your report that came out today or yesterday and
which was in the completeness report. The issue is whether or not there's sufficient notice to allow the party that there is being a request to the board for a variance. I'm not aware of uh you know any report that we do. Sure
there might be the applicant is relying on it but again we don't look at their notice and sign off on it for them to do. The purpose of my June 3 memo was to lay out all the variances as I as I saw.
I I don't understand uh where they were coming from with the 25 ft. As I look at their table, I see no reference to 25 ft being proposed as it relates to any of the bulk standards. That's why in my report I specifically say that in
regards to minimum lot width 150 feet is proposed and they're proposing 100 104 and change >> anything else gentlemen apologies I really nothing further that's my argument the uh you know this
is at best confusing planner was a little bit confused as to what was being requested. Ultimately, it's the applicant's responsibility to notice properly and it needs to put an ordinary person uh an ordinary lay person to quote the coxbook uh you know on notice that you know give them enough
information to intelligently determine whether to object or seek further information. So my contention is that based on the language of the notice it's a little bit confusing they're indicating that one set of variances is being sought. they get here tonight, a completely different set of variances could potentially be being sought. So
that's really in a nutshell. >> The issue between and I understand there's another objector here. We'll let her get up in a moment and have her say, but what's clearly in the notice is that
they can't meet certain requirements of the zoning application. The issue appears to be a difference between whether it's 25 ft or 104.72 feet. Either way, they don't meet the requirements of the zone which requires e a variance.
So to that part, we appear to be quibbling over the issue of how much of a variance they're required to have. Um, but before I render an opinion to the board, I understand there's a second objector here who wishes to place some
comments on the record. So, or at least introduce herself for purposes of being an objector on the record. So, let's let that individual come on. >> But what if her if her objection or her comments have nothing to do with notes? >> I don't know if they do or they don't. But normally what we do, as you recall,
Mr. Chairman, we let our objectors come up and place their object their objector status on the record and if they wish to have comments relative to this issue as to notice then she should if she has something else that's notice related
then yes but minimally to indicate she's serving as an objector and for the purposes of the record. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you gentlemen. My name is Marcy Green. >> You need to move the closer and the mic down. >> Sorry. Sorry. My first time along. >> I did.
>> Um so my name is Marcy Green and thank you for allowing me to speak. Um, again, this was short notice and we are trying to seek um a lawyer and I have been speaking to a lawyer, but due to when we received the uh certified letter on
Memorial Day weekend and then Monday being a holiday, um I have not been able to fully with my mom uh figure out a lawyer. But I have been speaking to one and um my representation right now has told me that the applicant should not go
through for the fact that the applicant has to prove that the bulk variances won't detrimentally affect the neighbors or the public good. The application does not state that because it hasn't been addressed all the criteria in the
application and we insist that the applicant pay an escrow to the board to allow for the professional review of the water management calculations. >> Okay. For purpose of the record, Miss Green, you are on objector status. If you're
not familiar with an objector status that allows you to come up once testimony is given and ask questions of the applicant's witnesses before members of the public and you are here representing yourself. Is that correct?
>> Correct. But what I just read came from the attorney that I was working with >> and that individual is >> Corey Gray. >> Okay. Is Mr. Gray going to be representing you? I'm in hopes of that, but again with such short notice.
>> Well, it's not short notice necessarily. It was sent out in the time period and I'll Mr. Fedun address that issue. >> We received it on a Saturday of the 23rd in the afternoon of Memorial Day weekend. >> That's still a standard mail day, ma'am.
Whether it's Memorial Day weekend, >> but what about Monday when everything is closed, right? >> Was it according to you? It was received on the 23rd. Correct. >> Right. >> Okay. Um,
your issues relate to the application and the testimony of the application and the applicant's witnesses and we are not at that point assuming we get to that point. We are more dealing with the issue of notice. Your contention is you
did not receive the notice in a timely fashion. Is that correct? >> Yes. to be able to retain >> though you were you did receive it for the purposes of the record on the 23rd of May. >> Correct. >> Thank you. >> Counselor,
>> I'm sorry. What the uh your name again, please? >> Marcy Green. >> Can you just state the address? Your Beverly >> Sorry, was that 46? >> Yes. >> Thank you. My affidavit uh indicates that a Loretta
Green uh was sent that notice on May 21st. Um I have I can find the green card if that's necessary as well, but that Loretta Green at 46 Beverly Drive was included in the list of people that in the 200 foot list.
>> Is that your question, Mr. Bing? Well, that's part one. Miss Green, are you the owner of the property? >> No, my mother is, but I've lived with her my entire life. >> And she and she's here this evening? >> Yes, she is. >> And you're and you're up here on her behalf? >> Yes. >> Thank you.
Um, it was received and acknowledged, Mr. Fedun, on the 23rd of May. That was the indication from Miss Green that her mother received the certified letter on
Saturday, May 23rd. And I apologize for asking the question again, Miss >> It was mailed on May 21st. That's correct. >> Right. And it was received on May 23rd. >> Whatever that Saturday was. Yes. >> Yes. Thank you. >> Okay. >> Anything else, ma'am, at this moment?
>> No, that is Thank you. >> Thank you. I appreciate it >> um so the issue is twofold. issue is that the notice is my words incomplete or inaccurate
according to one objector's council and the other objector is contending that the notice I assume is untime is untimely. >> If I may interrupt Mr. Bernstein, I think what she was saying was it wasn't
enough time from a perspective of time to retain an attorney. I don't think she's saying that the notice itself wasn't sent timely in accordance with the law. I think what she was saying was that's not enough time for me to get an attorney. >> Let's just confirm for the purposes of
the record. Is that the argument, ma'am? >> I feel that it's both. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> I took it as both council. But the second part, there is no requirement under the MLUL
that notice be given in sufficient time to allow parties to retain counsel. As much as members of the bar would like that to be a requirement of the of the law that in order to move forward,
everybody has to have an attorney. So, uh, I would argue to the board that the Miss Green's issue as to timeliness regarding an inability to find counsel is not an a
reason to put off this application. Um, the bigger question is the issue of whether notice is sufficient. Um, >> Mr. Can I just ask a quick question about
the timeliness issue? Right. >> Be my guess. >> How many >> is it calendar days or business days? >> Calendar. >> Okay. And how many calendar days? >> 10. >> Okay. So, we're within that.
>> Okay. >> And tonight is 12. >> Okay. Thank you. The bigger issue is the issue where the notice is sufficient to give the parties
an understanding as to what the applicant is seeking. Council for the objector indicates that it is insufficient. Council for the applicant says it's sufficient. And more importantly, it obtained the desired
result because the objector's council and the objector are here. Just for edification purposes, my office reviews the notices for sufficiency. I don't crossch checkck whether the
numbers in the notice are correct or whether it should be 25 or 104.72 or our review is to ensure that the notice meets the general requirements which is in this case is a request for
waiverss because of setbacks and to make sure that it's been given sent to the sufficient personnel and it's been put in the paper etc. That's what our job is. Our job is not to go back and and tell council for
applicants, oh by the way, unless I'm aware personally and we did not have any reports from anybody at the time the notices were reviewed. So frankly
I see the issue of proposed versus setback of requirement to be dimminimous. It's quite possible depending upon where this application goes. It may still require a v a c variance
but not necessarily for the number of feet necessary for the setback. This would not be the first application that this board has ever heard where the parties ask for a and we end up with something different from a as part of the testimony and the professional
recommendations and the like. I think the objective is that the application is before the board and the parties who are here have the right to question the applicants professionals present their own testimony if they so wish seek
extensions appropriately where necessary and none of that is assisted by quibbling over whether or not the number of feet in the in the notice is correct.
necessarily andor whether it should have said andor waivers or or waivers versus and waivers. And frankly, I don't know if the board knows whether they're asking for waiverss or not. We're not going to know totally until we hear the application.
So, it's my recommendation. Did I see a hand? Okay. It's my recommendation, Mr. Chairman, members of the board, that this application be heard. If ultimately Judge Menon wants to deal with this at some point, he'll deal with it accordingly at the
appropriate point um over whether or not this is a technical issue sufficient enough to to overturn a planning board decision which may or may not go the way the parties want. You know, you never know. objector
could convince the board that the application is not appropriate or the board may not find the application to be appropriate irrespective of what the objectors have to say. Um so I think for the purposes unless anyone else has any
disagreements or questions Mr. Chairman is the board allow the application to move forward in its current and we'll deal with it appropriately. Anybody have any to add before >> I concur with Mr. Bernstein? We should
move forward. >> Do we need a vote of any kind or is it just >> objections comments relative to the issues are so noted? >> Yeah, we appreciate you coming up for the objections and and or objecting and
welcome you to listen to what our engineer has to say with respect to for example storm water and if like Mr. Bernstein suggested if you want to argue that it needs to be extended so that you want to take another look at stuff >> we'll that'll be considered and um I
think I think we'll we'll hear what they have to say tonight you're here so >> we'll I I just want to for the purpose of the record I council knows but this is more from Miss Green in your current objective status Mr. Fedun is going to call Mr. Ford as a
witness Mr. Ford will be qualified. Mr. Ford will testify. Once Mr. Ford's testimony is done, objectors council will have the right to cross-examine him. You will then have the right to cross-examine him. Then members of the
public separate from you will have the right to cross-examine. So your current objector status at least gives you, for the lack of a better phrase, preferential treatment in terms of questioning. But you're questioning also on behalf of
your mother who owns the property. So she cannot come up and ask questions separate apart from you. >> Thank you. >> Just real briefly, thank you all for your time. Objections noted. So thank you.
>> Thank you. >> Okay. Without further ado, what I started to do is call Mr. Ford to the stand. Um, given the circumstances, I'm going to ask that he be sworn in and then I'm going to put his qualifications on the record. >> Yeah, I know.
um licensed engineer and planner in the state of New Jersey for more than 30 years uh with Ban Clee Engineering for more than 30 years and I've appeared before this board numerous times as both a professional planner and engineer.
>> Uh Mr. Chairman, I would suggest before the board qualifies Mr. Ford, though Mr. for it is a regular visitor to this board, sometimes more than members of the board. Uh that if the board andor any of the objectors have questions as
to Mr. Ford's credentials before you designate him an expert on behalf of I would make I would allow I would suggest that occur though I'm not sure objectors council necessarily should have a question since his firm regularly calls Mr. Ford as a
witness. Maybe he knows something we don't. Um, >> all right. So, anybody on the board have any questions on uh or on the DES have anything with respect to Mr. Ford? >> No. Okay.
>> Very briefly, >> Mr. Ford, your license is current and a good standing both in planning and engineering in state of New Jersey. >> Yes. >> Okay. No objection. His credentials. >> I I would hope that his license is current >> because your office, as I said, calls him on a regular basis on applicants for
you. >> Does anybody So, do I just open it up to the public if anybody has >> just the objector? >> Just the objector. Do you have any Do you want to question the witness about his credentials only? No. Thank you. >> Um, he stole my question. So, uh, we'll, uh,
proceed. Please. >> We qualifi We're Is the board Is the board have any objection to qualifying Mr. Ford as an expert witness in the field of engineering? >> No objections. >> Mr. forward. You had been uh retained to assist the applicant in preparing an
application and site plan for this particular application. Is that correct? >> Yes. >> Would you please sorry >> it's a subdivision. >> Would you please take the uh a moment to describe to the uh board uh the application or the the uh your design
for this uh for this uh uh application? >> Yes, it's uh the property is located in the R zone. Uh the property address is 4080 Hillsboro Road, has frontage on Hillsboro Road as well
as Leiden. Um the proposal is a minor subdivision to create three lots. One lot fronting or uh along Hillsboro Road with the existing dwelling and two new lots at
the rear or south uh end of the subject tract with access from Leiden. Uh the property is in excess of 4.8 acres. The three proposed lots are ranging in size from approximately 1.4
acres to 1.7. Uh that's well in excess of the 1 acre minimum lot size for the property. All uh three lots would be uh either
with existing single family dwellings as is the existing structure at 480 Hillsboro Road or the two rear lots would be the subject of a building permit application uh with thorough review by the
engineering department including storm water management grading drainage for two single family dwellings on the two proposed rear lots. The uh
bulk variance uh relief that was discussed uh at some length moments ago is with regards to the two proposed lots at the rear or south end of the site that would
have access from Leiden. What we've proposed is rather than and right now, Leiden uh is an improved street approximately 200 feet long extending from Beverly in an easterly direction to
the subject's site with a 50 foot wide rightway at that point. Um with all appearances of some time in the past having a plan for a future extension of Leiden. In fact, further to the east is
another section of Leiden that was uh constructed some time ago with single family residences on it. What our proposal is is to not extend Leiden uh with a public street. I've appeared
before the board in numerous other subdivisions and residential developments and often the um preference would be to not um produce new public improvements that would be uh the
responsibility of the township to own and maintain. And in this case, since we're proposing just two single family dwellings, we believe there's adequate um ability for access at the end of Leiden. And we're our our proposal and
preference would be to not extend Leiden with a either a public rightway which would cure the frontage or a lot with variance uh but but have um access from the existing conditions on Liden.
Uh the um alternative with the extension of the road is actually part of the plan set that was provided. Sheet 10 uh in the plan set of minor subdivision plans u submitted as part of the application
includes a representation of a variance-free uh extension of the public rightway of light and whereby both lot frontage and lot width would be adequately provided where in this zone the minimum required
is 150 ft. The distinction that we've talked about uh or has been talked about is that in the township ordinance there's a requirement for a lot width and then in the definitions the lot width
requirement is equal to or the lot frontage that is the um distance along the public rightway of a lot must be equal to the lot width. In this case, the
um proposed lot frontage at the end of that 50 foot rideaway would be 25 ft for both of the proposed lots. So that's what I think was, you know, appropriate listed in the notice. So that that is
the I'll say the smallest you know or the the greatest departure from the zoning criteria of 150 ft required whereby if you measure the lot width which is required as an equal distance as the lot frontage uh
we're in excess of 104 feet at the setbacks. From a planning perspective, we feel that that uh departure from the zone requirements um is a benefit whereby it reduces the
public improvements that would be required to be owned and maintained by the township while still providing adequate access for the two single family dwelling lots. Should the board act favorably on the application, the only thing that would be created out of
this uh would be the three lots. Um this is not approval for construction per se because the single family dwellings on both lots would have to go through uh the building permit application process including a zoning permit um and review
by the engineering department and the building department. As part of the application, um we do have uh some other details to share. That would be all three lots would be serviced by public water and sewer.
There's public water and sewer available both in Hillsboro Road and Leiden. The uh application included a um application to the county planning board. the Somerset Union Soil
Conservation District as well as uh will serve letters including a January 11th, 2026 will serve letter resolution issued by the Hillsboro Township Municipal Utilities Authority.
Approval by the Somerset Union Soil Conservation District of the Soil erosion and semicontrol plan dated December 19th, 2026. and a county letter, county planning board review letter dated May 20th, 2026, which uh depicts county approval
would be issued upon satisfaction of some uh minor uh conditions including uh the provisions of providing for the payment of um recycling containers to be provided for both of the two ex you know
new dwellings. Uh we also as part of the application submitted a letter. Let me find them. Mr. Ford, before you go on, I I will remind you you've been called as a
expert witness on engineering. Uh let's limit any planning related testimony unless you're >> as part of my introduction. And I identified myself as both a licensed engineer and planner. >> But you're qualified, I believe, for
this testimony as both or just an engineer. >> Our request was that we uh address both. Uh what I was about to introduce is as part of the record, we provided a February 1st, 2025 letter from a uh
consultant indicating that there are no freshwater or wetland or wetland buffers present on the site. And as part of the application review by the township, there was a determination that there's no flood hazard area uh
areas in uh located on the site. Um, as part of the application, we've submitted uh a detailed um grading, drainage, and utility plan, including uh a storm water management report. Uh the storm water management
report includes the specific design of a storm water management facility in accordance with the township standards and the state standards for major projects. That includes uh smallcale subsurface infiltration
basins that would be provided on both of the individual new lots for the future single family dwellings. That would uh provide for mitigation of peak storm water runoff from the site for all the required
design storms as well as um infiltration for the recharge requirements of the storm water management requirements. With regards to water quality, there is a um single
motor vehicle surface or if you will a a dirty surface that requires treatment. That would be the driveway accesses to the two proposed dwellings. And what has been provided on the plans to attenuate and as address storm water management
treatment aspects is pvious pavement driveways. The stormwater management facilities have been designed for um potential maximum buildout of the lots in accordance with the zoning
criteria which is limited to 15% impervious coverage. What uh what has and that's in excess of 11,000 square feet on the um one lot and 9,000 square feet on the
other lot. what has been depicted for um a a box, if you will, of where the house would go in the driveway is approximately 5,000 square feet. So, you'll see on the plans that the um
representation doesn't show a max build out of the lots. And certainly houses built of that size and and criteria would provide substantial opportunity for future
homeowners to provide for a um uh patio. Um swimming pools in the township are not considered impervious. Decks are not considered impervious, but a covered deck. So there's adequate provisions and flexibility for additional impervious
coverage on the site for both of the rear lots beyond what is represented on the plans. However, the storm water management submit system that has been represented on the plans would address
maximum buildout on both of those lots. So it's uh unless those lots get up to complete 50 15% impervious coverage those imper those stormwater management facilities would be um substantially
greater than what would be required um if less than 15% is is built. Chairman, >> can I interrupt here for a second because I'm a little confused. You're asking in the testimony for us to do a simple subdivision according to
what I'm reading here to make three lots. >> Correct. >> And you stated that the homeowners would have to come in and submit a new plan once they decide what they want to build. So, how can we consider what's going to be built on these lots if we're not proposing?
Um, they're not the builder. These aren't the actual plans. All you're asking for is three lots and and some variances. So, I I don't feel that the testimony you're giving about the drainage and the all the amenities and stuff isn't a
simple line adjustment. You're actually talking about a a site plan approval. >> Well, for >> that's which isn't I don't think what you're asking for in the application. >> No. No. and a and a a a permission to construct a single family dwelling on a
residential lot doesn't require site plan approval. The um application includes those elements now to demonstrate how adequate storm water management can be provided on both of the proposed lots. Uh and certainly um
as part of the detailed review of the construction permit of the final layouts of the houses would be subject to the engineering department review. >> Am I missing something? Maybe I >> it's really it's not it's say this were uh
>> so for example someone comes in and you have a a house that's on here I don't know how many square feet it is 3,000 5,000 square feet right and anth come come comes back and decides he wants to build a house X on there right which would then change setbacks variances
possibly drainage etc are you asking for us to look at this and and propose site plan with the buildings where you have them except or just the possibility where the buildings would be, >> right? And and the the points that you're making uh the subdivision would
carry with it the limitations that all of the zoning criteria for the future construction of the dwelling would have to comply with the township criteria. So they would have to meet the setback lines that are shown on this plan. This
is not unlike say a 100 lot subdivision plan where the the improvements are shown and the setbacks are shown but the specifics of the house are subject to a building permit application. >> Yeah, that I understand but I just appeared when I'm reading the
introduction and you're asking for basically a minor subdivision approval to do a lot line change and then we're kind of getting into some pretty detailed plans here on development. So that's why I was I was kind of confused as to where where we were going. That's all.
>> Okay. Mr. Ford, to that end and what you had started to touch on, I just want you to maybe reiterate just to make it clear. Um there is the 15% uh uh impervious coverage limitation. Anything in excess of that would require variances. Um what you are describing
here um doesn't exceed that 15%. Is that correct? >> Correct. So that um whatever proposal were to come in would either be a proposal for something that complies entirely with the development of a single family home on a single lot or
would require variances at that time if the uh uh contract purchaser wanted to do that. >> Correct. >> Okay. That Mr. Leani, does that satisfy you as far as that's concerned? >> Yeah, I understand. I just
continue. I understand what you're saying. >> Yes. >> You're setting parameters is what you're doing. >> That's what we're doing. That's correct. >> All right. Um, is there anything else that you need to describe as far as the overall description of the site? I don't think anything against Mr. Ford. Okay.
>> Um, there are some other issues that we would want to touch on and I think the probably the best way to do that would be to run through the memos that we have because they did raise a couple of issues that I think we have some very satisfactory responses for. Mr. Ford, is it possible to put the
plans up on the screens for the public? >> I have them on my computer. They >> We're being told that it's not functioning. >> Oh, okay. >> Mr. Koi is an expert on computer
hookups. While we work this tech issue, we'll take a fivem minute recess. >> Can we try? >> I don't know. W. >> All right, we're back on. >> Mr. Chairman, I thank you for granting
the um waiver, not so much waiver for the uh recess. Um Mr. done. It's been raised to my
level and I have a question. You're seeking variances in this application. Are you planning on having a planner testify as the same? >> No, I have a planner because Mr. Ford is qualified.
>> Get the mic closer. Okay. >> Yes, I do. >> So, Mr. Ford is going to grant planning testimony. You're aware. I know Mr. Ford is aware, he's been here more times than a lot of people, that Hillsboro has a
10day requirement for planners submit reports in advance of a hearing so that we avoid getting planning testimony on the night of the hearing versus all the other professionals who we have normally get reports in favor of. So, do
we have a report from Mr. Ford tonight? >> We do not have a report from Mr. Ford. And the reason for that is because it's twofold. The the variances that we're asking for I I don't mean to to to belittle them, but they are not significant variances. Um they are
something that um this board grants frequently and almost as a matter of course, but and more importantly, you know, he'll be responding also to the planners memo that planner memo that we received we received only that that today uh from the town. So that most of
what he's testified to will be uh in response to that. >> It doesn't matter how significant or insignificant the variance is. It's a variance. Otherwise, you wouldn't be here for a
variance application. You wouldn't be here because you wouldn't need the variance. whether it's a C v what whatever kind of C variance it is it's still a C variance and it still requires planning testimony and in this board's
requirements for the last I've lost track of the number of years I thought it was longer than that but for last four years at least we have required planners to provide planning reports so that we don't get the night of the
hearing planning And the board is reacting to whatever Mr. Koiser's office is not reacting. The board is not reacting and we're applicable. Mr. Mayu is not reacting to
testimony on the these are my words on the fly. So whether you planning on calling Mr. Ford or not to get planning testimony if he's qualified to give it is fine. However, Mr. Ford needs to provide a
report 10 days in advance and he hasn't. So therefore, if it's your intent to call Mr. Ford as a witness for planning testimony, we need a report and we don't have report in a timely fashion. So Mr. Ford can
testify as to engineering items, which we do have and have had, and we'll deal with the rest of it at the appropriate time. But at the moment, giving planning testimony without a report is in violation of the board's requirements.
>> The board also does does allow for exceptions to be made, and that's in in the resolution that it adopted. As far as >> And the exception that you're making here is >> that the the the variances that we're asking for are um they're slight. You
know, a variance is a variance. Of course, if we didn't if we didn't need a variance, it is a C variance. It has to do with the width of the um of the of the of the of the lot. So, it's it's not it's not if I may suggest it's not a
significant variance. It's it's it is a slight variance. And so, this board can wave that requirement. Let me suggest let me suggest this, Mr. Bernstein. >> Close. Mike, >> let me let me just suggest this in and in in in the interest of moving it along. I can have Mr. Ford testify. I was going to have him testify also to
the sea vanches. Perhaps we can do that. And if there's any issue that would be of any um uh interest as far as Mr. Koi is concerned or uh he would like to render his own opinion or something like that, we can decide at that point whether whether a continuation is
necessary. It may well be that a continuation is necessary anyhow and we'll produce that report. But I have to tell you, I can't imagine that the testimony that Mr. Ford is going to to profer as to the need for uh and why we
meet the requirements for the C variants are really that momentous. They're simply not. Um I am periodically accused of playing planner sometimes by my own planners.
So let me play planner again. The reason the board adopted the resolution four years ago was we were going we were getting planners coming in here every night telling us a how easy it is to grant and
b how insignificant a C variance is because that's what we hear. We don't hear use variances. We hear C variances. And therefore there was really no reason to need a report because it's
granted which sort of bellays the question what do we need planners for? Um which is not what we're here for. I understand your client's desire and yours to get this done yesterday
and trying to do this all in one shot. And frankly, if Mr. Ford had provided a report, however short or however long it was, 10 days in advance, we wouldn't be having this conversation in the first place. But it seems to be we're trying to ram this application through and
trying to now indicate that this is an exception to the board's resolution because it's really not much of anything. I would suggest you go down the road with Mr. Ford's engineering testimony and then let's see where we are. >> Okay? And I'm believe me, I'm not I'm
not here to argue that I'm it's you advise the board. It's the board's pleasure to proceed how the board wants to. >> I'm I'm recommending that to the board and to you. The board can tell me what it wants me to do with my recommendation. But what
No, I don't think this is an objective related issue. This is more a board issue than it is an objector related issue. They may be heard at the point in time where the board decides whether or not it wants a report for Mr. Ford or not, but at this moment, no.
Mr. Kis, any anything else you wish to say at the moment? >> I'm not aware of an exception in in the resolution. >> I'm not aware of one either, but for the sake of this discussion, there is one. I'm not so sure this really necessarily
falls under such a criteria. >> I can read it to you if you'd like, but there is an exception. >> Well, I don't have the resolution in front of me at the moment. I do >> but I as I said let's do the engineering
testimony maybe at that point we open up Mr. forward to cross-examination by the board etc. and then the board can revisit the planning issue thereafter. Unless you got one more, you got something to say.
>> The the only exception that's in the resolution and I could read it. Failure to provide said report in a timely manner will require the postponement of such testimony to a point in time where the 10 day 10 calendar days lead time can occur except under exceptional
circumstances as determined by the board chair or designate. So it appears that the exception issue is the 10 days for the hearing. Not so much that there's an exception issue for
the need or not or lack of need for a report. But again, why don't we get the engineering testimony done and then we can see where we are because I know Mr. Mayu has things to say. >> Yeah, let's proceed with the uh the
engineering testimony. Okay. Thank you, >> Mr. Ford. You had an opportunity to review the uh report of the uh township engineer regarding this matter. Is that correct? >> Yes. >> Would ask you to step through that report um on behalf of the applicant to
render to the board your responses. >> Okay. This would be uh a report from Pannon Associates dated June 3rd, 2026 addressed to uh David Kis, the planning director. It's five pages.
Um I'll uh speak to the items that um would like to discuss with the board, but I'll I'll go directly to for example the stormwater section which starts at the bottom of page two
uh and goes on to page three and four containing 11 items. They're all technical in nature with additional information requested to be provided in a second spot as as opposed to just in
the one spot. Uh we would agree to address each and every one of those 11 items to the board engineer satisfaction and they are all regarding storm water management. I would say the same for grading and
drainage comments one through four. uh which is on page four or five with regards to items one through five under utility comments. Uh we would suggest that specifically
items four which is regarding a suggestion to extend this public sanitary sewer be deferred to the um jurisdiction of the Hillsboro Township Municipal Utilities Authority. So in
other words, we would comply with their requirements and what they would require. And then with regards to item five regarding public water and public water access, we would comply with the uh
requirements of New Jersey American Water, which is the franchisee for public water super public water service at this location and what their requirements are to provide adequate water service to the two new dwellings.
And then uh continuing regarding item five under utility comments, there's uh comments regarding the location of the nearest fire hydrant. Um what I would refer to there is that we are so also in
receipt of a June 4th actually two memos from the fire official dated June 4th. We would uh agree to comply with to to the fire officials satisfaction all comments regarding emergency access for
five vehicles and the location of hydrants. Um and certainly we're not I'll say taking away jurisdiction or review opportunities from the board engineer, but what we're suggesting is those
elements are uh under the jurisdiction of those two utilities and and that's what we would defer to whatever they would require um in the event there's conflicting requirements. And then
uh under uh minor subdivision comments starting at the bottom of page four continue uh items one through four we have no objection to item five or I'm sorry on page five landscape comments
and outside agency review approvals. Uh we agree um to comply. The one item I uh skipped is under general comments and I'm back to page two. Page one is description of the
application. On page two, uh there's general comments number three and that is a suggestion that uh the applicant either provide well that the
applicant provide an extension of Lenin Road and improve Lenin Road. Uh, and as I pointed out earlier in my testimony, if the public road lot and road were extended through between the two proposed lots, that would eliminate the
relief were uh require or requesting regarding lot width uh and lot frontage uh length of 150 ft required. And what we would suggest to the board there is that uh in addition to what I've already
stated with regards to the um the the lack of warrants for the need of a public road. Uh over the last 24 hours, we have also since reviewing and receiving these reports done additional
research. And as many of the board members may be aware, uh the uh joining property just to the east of this site, it's lot 30 in block 203.10
10 is uh was the subject of a board of adjustment application uh approved by the township uh recently for a religious uh facility which is under construction. And um it's that our that's our nearest
neighbor to the to the east where if we were to provide and uh have opportunities for a continuation of extension of Lid and Road, that's where it would go to. And what we've discovered in our due diligence review over the last 24 hours is that part and
parcel to that township board of adjustment approval was the requirement that a conservation easement be placed over the majority of the excess lands that are not being used for that religious institution. And I have a copy
an exhibit that we prepared this morning uh that we'd like to enter as evidence now. And that is an exhibit illustrating in green the extent of that conservation easement that would basically uh eliminate the potential for any
continued future extension of lighten road past the applicant's property and therefore make it move to extend the property through the applicant's site. Um, and then attached to this exhibit is
the actual conservation ement that was recorded. >> So, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to uh mark this uh exhibit as >> we have copies. >> Yes. >> Why don't we have copies distributed to the board members and to the two
objectors and then we'll talk about marking it. Are we um unable to see anything up here or is that >> is so
the green >> I would suggest >> be my easel. >> I would suggest Mr. Ford you take the mic off the stand >> unless you want to I'll >> right here. I'm good. No, that's fine. Yeah. So, the so the uh extent of the
conservation easement is uh the entire rear portion of the property and all the areas beyond where the proposed uh religious institutions building and parking area are. and it not only uh
encumbers the rear portion of the property but actually slivers of land down both sides of the property. And what was passed out is the recorded document for that conservation easement. Uh and the exhibit we prepared is a um
illustration of the extent of that easement. So the the existing portion of Leiden which you know would uh at some point in uh the past had been pro um planned for
a potential extension all the way through the the three lots um the the applicant's property, the church's property if you will and one other vacant piece of property to the east and then connect the other existing
portion of Leiden has been rendered uh unobtainable by virtue of the um reservation of a substantial portion of the middle property into a conservation easement that could not be disturbed.
>> So just to to make the record clear, Mr. Ford, what you're saying is there's conservation easement on the property on the church property, if you will, which uh would prohibit the extension of widening of the of
>> correct correct >> it would prohibit the extension of Leiden where >> the if you look at your key map >> yes >> yeah there's the little piece of lid in from Beverly but to the east of us
there's another portion of Leiden and and it would have I think the vision was that those two segments of Leiden potentially could be connected by going through all three lots. And and what was suggested in the in the review memos was
that we continue we provide this segment to help preserve the potential future extension of Liden further to the east and a connection to the other portion of Leaden. And we don't wish to do that. We don't think it's necessary. And this
aspect of the conservation easement makes it actually uh not possible. >> But nothing would prevent the current property owner from extending light in through the property that you want to subdivide. >> No. No. Yeah. No, we're not. >> So the so the fact that it just to point
out to everybody that it can't go any further than that. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> Right. Right. >> Right. >> You want to mark this council as A1, >> please? Mr. Ford, I believe you've already testified. You're the author of this
document. >> Yes. >> Of the of the map. And what's attached to it is the recorded conservation easement. >> Correct. >> Then I can represent to you as part of that exhibit that that recorded document
was something that my office retrieved from the public records from some county clerk's office. But what's not attached, just so that everybody is aware, what's not attached is the zoning board resolution approving the application. >> I can supply with a copy of that as well
if you like. >> You got copies? >> I don't have copies. No, but I certainly can supply. I would I would have thought that it would have been attached to this document simply because simply referring to it in the conservation easement in
and of itself really doesn't give the board the full picture of exactly what the zoning board approved four years ago relative to the site and what the plans were. >> My apologies, Mr. Person. >> That's not I'm not assigning Mr. have
done blame or anything else. I'm merely indicating that if you're going to ask the board to review the document as a indication of the fact that the that Leiden cannot be extended because the
conservation easement on the neighboring property prevents such from occurring. It would have been nice for the board, and it may not be an issue tonight anyway, but it would have been nice for the board to understand what the zoning board's thoughts were when they adopted
the resolution granting the neighboring application at the time four years ago in which they discussed the conservation easement. >> I will grant you that, Mr. Mr. Bernstein. We found out we we saw this objection from Mr. Koi today, probably I I want to guess sometime just before
lunch. I found this conservation easement and this recorded document at about 4:30 >> forward. >> So I mean do you some point want some back from our office since you started this?
>> Do I want excuses feedback from our office? Um, topic. >> Yeah, I I think on this specific topic I I've I mean I was thinking about while this is all going on. Um, I think we should get a copy of that and then Yeah. Do you have any I I
>> Well, I was waiting till I guess Mr. Ford finished his engineering testimony then unless there's more items. >> Yeah. No, I in summary uh with regards to the the June 3rd memorandum under general comments number three, our
suggestion is that uh lot and road not be physically extended. Uh and then uh with regards to the utility comments four and five um we just uh suggest that the um entities
that have jurisdiction over those elements um be the um subject to we would comply with all the uh recommendations otherwise in the review memorandum and we uh have already
reviewed uh in detail fill all of the suggested requirements and they would not result in any subsidive changes to the engineering design. Um, so one thing I think
we >> I I know, but one but one thing I I I I typically we hear you talk about storm water and runoff and so and we jump right to your comments and your report
without explaining to us what where's the runoff going to go from these properties. I mean, I think that's why we have residents here. The neighbors are concerned about where the runoff's going to go. So, we we and I know we don't have it up on the screen, but
typically we go through and I'm looking at the drawings. I can assume what what's going to happen, but I think that would be um that's always an issue and it's, you know, I I so I' I'd like to hear I don't know how we can get it up on the screen. I'm I'm looking at
drawing number four um which is the grading drainage and utility plan and the um well the profiles again I I just I
wanted to I I'd like to hear hear about that um and what your plans are. Yeah, I know. It's a I was going to change operating systems. Good
ring to go. >> Why is it not? It's not working. No. >> Okay. Ford, if you would mark this A2. This is sheet four of the plans that
were provided to the board as part of this application. Mr. Ford, you're the author of this. >> Yes. >> And the date on the document is >> Here we go. Wait, wait, wait. Okay. Uh,
this is last revised March 11th, 2026. >> Thank you. >> And this is I believe you this is we're looking at it on civic clerk. So, this is actually already part of the record. Well, but as you are well aware in your prior life being here, do uh exhibits
that come before the board even if they've previously been provided for the board are marked for purposes of the record. So we know which ones also were discussed in the public view separate and apart from what was on civic clerk. >> That's just I wanted to make sure the
public knew that this is not a new exhibit. >> Okay. So uh we've uh zoomed in on uh the uh portion of the land where the two proposed lots would be proposed and
there's been a request to provide for discussion of stormwater management. Uh the property generally drains from a east to west direction. Um uh that would be toward the lots that front on
Beverly. What we've uh proposed as part of this application is on the downslope side of the two proposed lots. That is immediately to the rear of the lots that front on Beverly is where the storm water management system would be placed
to intercept runoff and capture it before it can continue to run off onto the neighbor's property. And uh there is highlighted on this exhibit uh larger gray boxes, if you will, rectangles
uh that you see are actually larger than what the proposed dwellings are depicted. They are the smallcale subsurface infiltration basins. That's uh basically, if you will, a a
substantial septic disposal field type of uh situation where storm water runoff is uh or similar to that, storm water runoff is directed uh both via um pipes that collect from the roof runoff of the
dwellings as well as some lawn area inlets. And I'm highlighting them now with pipes that capture overland runoff directed to that underground uh basin, if you will, that has an outlet structure that controls the
release of runoff. And then the discharge from both of those underground basins is connected directly into the municipal storm water management system at the end of Leiden. And there's no um discharges
at grade from those basins toward any of the lots uh on be um Beverly. And then the um driveways would be the porest pavement would also offer an opportunity for
groundwater infiltration uh as does the subsurface uh basins. And as I stated earlier, they've been sized to accommodate for the total impervious coverage that would be the max allowed by ordinance on both of the
proposed lots. That's essence of the stormwater management system. I think I re uh didn't mention earlier, we also have made application to the Delaware and Ron Canal Commission. We have some um minor comments that we've received from them
regarding storm water management, but certainly uh any uh approval the township may grant would ultimately be subject to the um Delaware Aaron Canal Commission approval as well. And one of their aspects of their review is stormwater management.
And as I stated earlier, uh all of the application uh comments in the June 3rd board engineers review memorandum regarding storm water management, we agreed to comply with to their satisfaction. >> Uh okay. You you said that the driveways
were impervious. >> Uh porous pavement. >> Porest pavement. >> Correct. I guess the rhetorical question is what's to prevent somebody from five years from now just from just paving over it? >> A deed restriction that would be required to be filed for the on-site
stormwater management facilities. Uh that would include a maintenance manual and a restriction that they continue to maintain them. And the township uh has a code requirement that requires annual reporting of inspections >> to the township engineering department.
>> Okay. Thanks. >> Yes, >> that's um uh Okay, so that that's with the that comes with this the sale of the property or whoever. Okay, thanks. >> And they can be done with uh
uh porest pavement like for example the portions of the parking lot at our office are porous pavement. They don't look much different than than regular pavement. Um but certainly during a stormwater running uh event you can see them functioning and um there's also
options with porous pa blocks if you will. Um, an example of that would be on Sunnyme Road. As you head northbound just before you get to Falcon Road, there's about four lots in series and all those driveways are the PA blocks
which are, you know, serve the same function but perhaps are, you know, a nicer aesthetic option. >> Okay, thanks. Um,
is there any any other engineering if not we can I don't know if the Deis has anything we can we could jump right to Mr. Mayhew he's smiling. Um, anybody have anything or follow up? Take the lead, sir.
>> Have to justify sitting here. Um, I'd like to hand out an exhibit. This is a exhibit prepared by Pannon Associates. It's taken a screenshot from the New Jersey Geo web which shows streets
and partial numbers and then some text that we've added to the um to the plan showing the general uh work area. to Mr. Fun to the two objectors first. Mister, may you
us here's the church. I know. >> Yeah. So, let I think everybody has one now. Let me help orient you. >> Why don't we mark this B1? Which one? The one that went up was A2.
This is B1 because it's a board exhibit. Mr. May you give us a description again for the record who the author of this document is, where it comes from. Uh yes, I prepared this exhibit today. It's a screenshot from the New Jersey
Geo web uh web page. It delineates uh roadways, uh partials or lots and you can see the lot numbers, block numbers. And then um in red, that's the information that uh our office added.
And it shows the proposed three lots, the applicants here tonight for 2901, 2902, and 2903. It shows the adjoining um religious establishment.
Uh it's you can't see it, but underneath the text it's lot 30. And then it shows one more long uh lot that fronts on Hillsboro Road. It's lot 31. And then as Mr. Fords testified earlier, then you'll you'll see the beginning or
the end of the eastern uh Lynen Drive right away. And as Mr. Fords alluded in our general comment number three, our office strongly suggests that any
application be contingent on the applicant um providing the required 50-foot rightaway through their subject lot and the um standard roadway improvements
associated with that. Now, even if the road is never extended, we believe providing the rightway and roadway is good planning and good engineering for multiple reasons which I'll I'll address and share.
I do want though to point out one item that I take exception to the applicant's testimony. Um, I found out by accident talking to the Hillsboro MUA today that the applicant was going to bring up
this adjoining conservation easement and the township staff was kind enough to dig up the conservation easement that was filed. And I want to bring everybody's attention to page two of that easement,
paragraph number five. And it talks about grantor's obligations. And I want to bring to your attention the very last sentence. Grtor shall not construct any buildings,
structures or improvements within the easement without the express written consent of grantee. The grantee is Hillsbor Township Committee. I'm going to defer to the attorneys, but
in our office opinion, this easement does not prohibit forever any improvement. It simply provides the township the right to make a decision whether they want improvements at some point or not in
this subject area. But as I said before, whether or not that road ever gets extended in our lifetime, our office strongly believes providing the right away in lot 29 is good planning and good engineering for
multiple reasons. Um, as I said, I spoke to the the Hillsboro MUA today. They strongly support extending the existing sanitary line in Lynen Drive, extended through lot 29 to a manhole at the end
of lot 29 and then providing services directly off that extended line rather than the long laterals proposed trying to reach out to the existing deadend sanitary.
Um, our office communicates with New Jersey American Water Company multiple times. I didn't have time to call them today. Um but we believe we have jurisdictional rights to provide the best engineering and planning for the community and to protect the health, welfare and safety
of the community and strongly suggest the existing wood remain be extended to the end of lot 29 provide the opportunity to extend it in the future and to provide a fire hydrant at the end of that extension. As I noted in our review letter,
dwellings, proposed dwellings currently don't meet the maximum 400 foot distance from a hydrant. And as you'll see, as Mr. Ford alluded to, the fire chief has issued a letter today where he has,
as he says in his words, has concerns. Um, I don't want to read his whole letter, but essentially he says it would be more advantageous to have Lynen Drive extend past the homes
so engine or aerial apparatus could be strategically placed. By doing this, this would make the backup distance for an apparatus approximately 350, which may now require a turnaround for apparatus. And that piggybacks on what
our comments stated that this rightway should be extended, the cartway should be extended, and there should be a temporary K turn easement provided at the end of the dead end. We're not suggesting the expense of a full
culdeac, but simply a K turn that would allow the fire apparatus and any other emergency vehicles to safely exit the dead end. and that temporary easement could be voided if this road was ever extended all the way through.
Providing this right away would eliminate that we haven't discussed yet, but we mentioned the two front yard width variances. They would no longer need those variances. Um,
it would also still allow lot 2901 and 2902 to meet the minimum required area. There's plenty of space to provide the right away. We also believe that it's appropriate to extend the right away in front of the
two proposed homes so that the new neighbors are not imposing on the existing neighbors. There will be visitor parking associated with the new homes. they should park on the street in front of their new homes. There will be snow plowing issues, which I'm sure right now, snow gets plowed to the dead
end and left there. If we don't extend this road, the applicants trying to put two driveways on both ends of that dead end and you'd be plowing up the driveways or having to move it somewhere. Um, so as I mentioned, from a sanitary sewer
standpoint, from a water standpoint, from a fire protection standpoint, for good planning that allows the future connection if the township committee ever decided it wanted to do it in years to go, from a health, safety, and welfare standpoint to the public, it all
makes sense to extend the right away and extend the cartway to meet our RSIS standards. I'd be happy to answer any questions. What what would be involved in the Kturn facility? just not familiar with what
>> I believe we recently just did that for u a three lot subdivision on Valley Road where this board approved a K turn at the end of a private roadway to provide adequate turning for the fire apparatus it would be very similar to
that >> I don't I mean I I was here for that and I don't remember that specific uh >> so so what it means is on one of these lots 2901 or 292 there would be a temporary easement 25 ft wide or so and maybe 25 ft into
the property that allows the fire truck to turn into it and then back up and then finish making the turn to exit London Drive. >> But it could just be grass. It's just an easy. >> It would have to be stabilized so that the wheels could >> stone or something. There's no curb at
that point. There's a cutout to allow the vehicle to turn into I would suggest a depressed curb. >> Right. I would just express at a minimum a reinforced lawn area that you can put this plastic product underneath that helps stabilize it. It would be more
attractive than just stone and and less maintenance. Um I think the applicant had mentioned they want to defer to the approving authorities. Well, certainly the roadway is township authority
and having proper fire protection and public water and sanitary. I believe all comes under the board's ability. It's in our ordinances to also review and approve. So, I don't believe that all these decisions should simply be kicked to
another authority. Uh specifically, general comment number four talks about the applicants proposing to rip up several hundred feet of roadway to put in a storm pipe and then simply leave it
with a patch. And we're suggesting that roadway should be mil and repaved because it's not fair to the township and the residents to live with that trench. Again, I think the applicants said we'll defer to the authority. Well, it's a storm pipe. We are the authority.
It's our road. Well, Mr. Mayor, I said the township passed an ordinance. Now, anything that is disturbed on a road now be is paved curb to curb. So, that is now a township ordinance. So, that'll be >> that would eliminate just leaving a patch.
>> Correct. That is not allowed anymore. >> The applicant has no objection to general comment number four. That's why we didn't bring it up. That's the suggestion to mill and overlay the road.
I I would also I'm sure everybody didn't read the whole review letter, but in this general comment three, we point out in section 188-89B, your ordinance states when a new development adjoins land capable of being further developed, suitable
revisions should be made for optimum access of the remaining and or adjoining track to existing or proposed streets. This is specifically stating therefore that we should think about the future and what might make sense.
And again, even if you extend the right away in the cartway, it's not telling anybody right now that you have to continue all the way through. That decision can be deferred when the next two lots are being developed. Anybody have any questions? Mr. May you
um along the lines of lighting, if the street were to be extended, any comments about what would need to be done? >> Well, in terms of street lights, I think our office and the township office try very hard to respect the night sky view
and so we work very hard to minimize night glare. Um and our opinion would be no street lights would be required on this section. We generally limit to intersections and so we're not talking about the intersection right now. So we
would not recommend any additional street lighting and that's consistent with some of the larger subdivisions like Toll Brother subdivision and the Eminem West Glengary those lights are limited to intersections. Any
other comments from the Dis? >> Yeah, Mark, can you just clarify uh number three where um you say we suggest the board require the Lynon Drive 50 foot wide right of way and 30 foot wide cartway with curbs. What does that mean?
Is it a 30 foot wide road with the extra 20 for sidewalks and curbs or correct? >> Give me a little idea of that. >> So 50 foot is the legal right away which matches the existing roadway. >> That's what I was matching what it is now.
>> And it meets RSIS. 30 feet is the recommended roadway width from curb to curb which would meet RSIS criteria and it also matches the existing cartway and we're only recommending putting sidewalk on one
side which is allowed in RSIs and that would match currently sidewalk is only on one side so we recommend only extending the existing sidewalk to allow the new residents to safely traverse up. So as you explained there's 10 ft of
lawn area on both sides of the road and in one of those there would be a 4 foot wide sidewalk and all that's per RSIS. >> Okay. And it would match up to the existing so we're not >> exactly >> re tearing things up and reinventing the wheel here. >> You're correct.
>> Okay. Thank you. I know you took some thunder from some of the board here, especially our friend down here, especially about the snow. I couldn't agree more. Um, as I saw a bunch of people sh nod their head over there when you talked about that, but uh
I'm glad that you consider that because a lot of people don't think about the snow and how it affects plowing and and our and our trucks and and to me extending the road not only is good planning, but it viates the some of the other issues you talked about and
variances in road frontage. So, um I think that was a good comment. Thank you. Um I want to also point out when you mentioned it eliminates the variances. If you do this with the extension, the homes as shown on the plan now would
still meet front yard setback. So, this extended road would create the front yard for these two lots. And the way the homes are positioned currently on the sketch, they wouldn't have to move. They already meet the 50 foot front yard
>> and it looks like it doesn't affect the storm water design or anything else that was >> it does. I mean, it looks like it doesn't. From what I can see, >> there's no significant impact to the stormwater other than I would make a condition that the applicant address this this additional increase in pvious
with his systems. Oh, might have to upsize them or >> a little bit. >> Now, there are options available and I was going to bring this up tonight on large lots. Sometimes they never meet the total impervious coverage. So, these
are allowed 15% which is a significant amount for a acre or plus lot. And if the applicant felt that they would never use all that space, they could be restricted to a lower impervious cover number that might compensate for the the
roadway. ask um all right so if there's nothing else from the day do either does objector one have any comments on is it on what may he presented or engineering testimony
thank you Mr. Wait, are we done with engineering testimony? >> I Yeah, let me check on that. Are was there anything else, Mr. Mayhew, that uh >> Sorry. I think for the record, Mr. Ford, I was trying to make notes, said that his out his client would agree with all the other comments. So, I'm not going to
repeat any of those. Um, I've talked on general comment three, general comment four, five, and I think we've talked about the utility comment number four is we suggest sanitary sewer main be extended
as and I spoke to Pamela today and they agree. And then um utility comment number five is that we suggest extending the wood remain in the public road, ending it with a hydrant to provide safe fire protection,
getting the dwelling units within the required RSIs 400t distance. Um and certainly we would coordinate that with New Jersey American Water Company. Um yeah, that that covers the only comments
that were necessary to talk about. Thank you. Thanks. Um, objector one. Any questions on the engineering testimony? >> Mike, do you need uh you good? >> Mr. Chairman, just real quickly, it's uh 9:12 now. I I just want to be respectful
of the board's time. I uh have a number of questions for Mr. Ford. I might take maybe half hour or so, hopefully less. I've just uh you know Figured I'd throw that out there for the board if they >> No, I I appreciate um our typical
>> procedure has been to take no testimony after 10 >> after 10, but that doesn't preclude the question. So I don't >> Okay. >> So So >> Okay. All right. So I'm I'm to proceed. I just don't want to hold you guys. >> I appreciate it. >> All right. Thank you. >> All right. Mr. Ford, the sponsor.
Okay. Uh first question for you, Mr. Ford. Um regarding proposed law 29.01, Could you give us an explanation of how that lot's going to be graded? Like like where's it going to be sloping down to? General topography under proposed conditions. Can we pull back up B1?
>> Yeah, the knew that was coming. The site, I think I described already, the site generally drains from a east to west direction from the property toward the rear of the lots fronting Beverly. And
>> I'm I'm sorry to interrupt. Under existing or proposed? Are you talking both? >> I'm talking both. >> Okay. >> We're not We're not substantially changing >> the general drainage patterns. >> Okay. >> We're simply providing that was one. What I was really looking
for was the one from Mr. May you if you want to leave this one up, this is fine. This is A2. >> I think this is A2. >> The questions that are being asked. >> Yeah. >> For the purpose of the record, this is A2. >> Okay. So, I guess my on that point, so
is it going to be sloping proposal lot 29.01? Is it going to be sloping down towards uh the adjacent lot to the west? It's my client's property. >> Uh yes. >> Okay. And I believe you said that you're going to be capturing the water that's going to be before it runs off on his property. Is that true or >> I I've said that multiple times already
this evening. >> Understood. Um okay, another few questions just more so about like the ongoing maintenance of the stormwater facilities. Um so as you testified to you have you prepared an operations and maintenance manual um that's going to be recorded in the chain of title when the
properties are sold. Is that correct? >> That's correct. >> Okay. And so what's the ongoing what's the plan for maintaining that those facilities after the lots are sold? Um, are there any reassurances we can rely on that uh the systems will be maintained in perpetuity? Like is an is an HOA going to be responsible? An LLC
owned by the applicant? Has that yet to be determined? you know, they would be uh individual lot owners would be responsible for the maintenance. And I think as I answered the chairman's question about a half an hour ago, the
township requires that uh the owners of such facilities provide inspection reports to the township engineering report engineering department annually to demonstrate adequate in you know maintenance is being taken. >> Okay. All right. So So every property
owner subsequent to the applicant would be responsible for doing that every year with the township. >> Correct. >> And if they don't, are you aware of what what kind of penalties that would be faced or what kind of enforcement mechanisms? >> I'm not familiar with >> might be a question for the township engineer. I hate to put him on the spot for the board engineer. Um I don't mean
to put you on the spot, Mr. May. I'm cross-examining uh the applicant's engineer. I'll just move on. Um >> no, I'm sorry. Could you repeat the question? I was just cur we're curious about what you know what mechanisms the township has to en ensure that these storm water maintenance facilities storm
water management facilities are going to be maintained in perpetuity when subsequent property owners come in like let's say the applicant sells to somebody they they don't maintain it what happens to them >> well in order for this project to be filed the applicant if it's approved
would have to submit a uh deed um an agreement to for stormwater management maintenance and part of that allows the township to inspect the site and take action if the homeowner refuses
to address any maintenance issues. >> So would that be like placing a lean on the property for example? >> Well, I'm not an attorney, but it would allow the township public works to do the work and then I I don't know how and then you get build. Okay. >> Okay.
>> And as and prior to that, our office also reviews the area identified um on the deed to make sure it's encompassing the areas that need to have maintenance. >> Okay. Yeah. I just my my client was curious and I'm don't want to speak for other members of the public, but I think
everybody was major concern storm water. So that's why we're asking these questions. Um okay, back to Mr. Ford. Uh the pvious pavers, so are they going to be strong enough to handle I'm sorry, handle daily pressure? Is that >> Yes. So they're they're appropriate for
vehicles. Yes. >> All right. And uh would the applicant I don't know if you could speak to this or maybe if uh Mr. Fun could speak to it. The um will the applicant be willing to agree to place deed restrictions on the subdivision deed indicating the use of
the proposed underground detention system and the existence of the previous papers? >> I don't understand the question. >> Okay. When you record the subdivision deed, can you would the applicant be willing to include something in that deed that indicates that there's underground detention systems and that
the previous papers are supposed to be maintained in perpetuity? >> Well, that's included in the OEM. That's filed. >> Okay. >> But in the subdivision deed itself, the subdivision division deed itself references the ether the the resolution
of approval or the OEM itself. The OEM is filed. If I may, it actually is going to get recorded with each of the individual lot deeds. They're going to be subject to these easements. So when >> when Mr. Ford's office prepares a deed
for the new lots, those will be filed and they're going to say somewhere in that language subject to these stormwater management, >> but not with the initial subdivision. You'd have to go searching the the chain of title to find them. Correct. might be a legal question.
>> Yeah, you're going into legal again for me. >> Yeah. All right. That's all right. I think we can move on from there. Um, all right. Another question. If uh would the applicant be willing to agree to submit an asbuilt survey post construction that includes the storm water management
components depicted on them on the survey? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> That's a township requirement. >> Okay. Excellent. Something concerned about. Um, we talked a lot about Lynen Drive, so I don't want to go too go over too much more than we already have, but um I don't know if you're
aware, well, are you aware that there's a culde-sac on the other terminus of Lynen Drive to the east of the subject property that be adjacent to lot 31? >> Yes. >> Okay. And uh would you agree that providing a culde-sac at the end of Lynen Drive in front of proposed lots
29.01 29.02 would be a safer alternative to creating two new driveways off that terminus as is currently proposed? Uh the the other section of Lynen you're uh referencing actually has 10 lots on
it. So it's much longer and bigger. Um there's been discussion and I think it's going to be a board decision as to how the existing or even potential future extension of Leiden is treated in this
case. As I understood Mr. May who's suggestion if it were extended through the subject site um to the church's property it would have some type of kturn turn at the end of it >> right but would a culde-sac be a safer alternative to that
>> um the the RSIS standards recognize both options and as Mr. Mayo, you know, referred to. I'm aware of another similar application, I'll say, with a longer uh residential culde-sac that was
treated with an a K turn rather than a culde-sac. >> Okay. But with respect, Mr. Therefore, my question is whether or not it's safe or not. Whether not >> I I think that ultimately um it's the both alternatives would
provide for adequate turning of emergency vehicles. >> Okay. >> So, so they both meet the criteria. So, there's not there's a threshold and once you meet the threshold, you're you've met the criteria. >> What about passenger vehicles? So, the
reason I raised this, my my client's driveway is connected to Lynon as it currently exists. And if you have two more driveways at the end of Lyndon on its east face, what so let's say somebody makes a wrong turn and goes down that road, how do they get out of there? They have to pull into somebody's
driveway to get out. Do they back would a culde-sac not be an easier alternative for for everybody, firet trucks included, members of the public, to just get out of there instead of having to back into somebody's driveway into somebody's lawn? uh a a 30 foot wide cartway that exists now is adequate for
a passenger vehicle to make a K turn in, >> right? But I mean to get technical, wouldn't that be violating uh you're not an attorney, but I think that would be violating uh local traffic laws. You're not maintaining >> I'm just speaking from a practical standpoint, but >> I think my point's been
>> Yeah. And there's and there's standards, too, sir. the right the residential site improvement standards >> dictate what's adequate for uh turnarounds not only in residential uh subdivisions in Hillsboro but throughout the state. >> Yeah.
>> And so RSIS would be okay with what you're you're proposing. >> Yes. RSIS doesn't require a turnaround on a a dead-end street that's less than 300 feet and that's what it is right now. >> Okay. That in fact recognize the existing condition.
>> Okay. All right. Um, okay. You've already talked about you guys are agreeing to repave Lynon, so that's great. That was another concern of ours. Um, okay. Another thing I want to get to is landscape screening. Um, I think you might have briefly touched on uh
providing tree replacements or tree mitigation, but could you tell us like what's proposed along the property lines bordering the existing residential lots, particularly my client's lot? Um, that' be on the western side of proposed lot 29.01. Well, there's there's uh been a
request uh and we've agreed to it in the uh June 3rd engineer review regarding a tree mitigation plan. Uh there is actually a tree mitigation plan as part of the set of plans that shows landscaping
uh essentially at the entire perimeter of the limited disturbance on both lots. >> Okay. And there's not that not I'm not aware of a township buffer requirement to buffer
uh one residential use next to another residential use. So the there isn't a criteria that that that I understand we're or I or perhaps there's a criteria that you're aware of that you can refer us to that the township ordinance requires buffering of two residential
lots. >> Okay. I understand there's not a township requirement, but I'm asking on behalf of my client. I mean, do with what you're proposing, do you think that's adequate to to provide screening between both his lot and and this new proposed lot? I mean, uh, it's a concern of ours because my client, his backyard
faces is going to face right into this new dwelling. Um, certainly want you guys to be willing to work with us to provide some additional trees if if you know post construction, it doesn't look like there's enough of a buffer there. We're just looking for some natural foliage, >> potentially a fence, depending on the circumstances, how it looks. It's, you
know, I think it' be to the eventual property owner's benefit, too, because I'm sure he doesn't want to look at my client's backyard, either. >> Yeah. I think it's uh something that can be considered by the applicant. >> Okay. >> And and the the buffer or the landscaping that's proposed now as part of the tree mitigation includes
evergreen plantings in in the area you're referring to. >> I hate to put you on the spot with that, but how many trees are proposed along that share property? >> Um there I don't have a count. There's there's a it's it's a it's a dense planting, but we're talking about something different and we can consider it.
>> Okay. All right. Excellent. >> Perhaps that. So, thank you. >> Um, all right. Let me move on. I think just one or two. Um, okay. I think that's it for now. I did have some questions about planning, but we'll see if we got to that tonight. So, that's all I have. Thank you board members for your time. I appreciate it.
>> Thank you. >> Could I add one thing, Mr. Chairman? >> Yes. As as the objector's attorney was pointing out certain issues and buffers, I will also point to the board's attention that if the road's not extended and we and they build it the
way it's shown, these new lots have driveways that come in and curve and there's going to be headlight shining into the rear yards of these two existing homes. Um,
if if you look at proposed lot 2902, when they use their driveway and exit, their headlights are going to be shining right directly into Mr. I want to mispronounce Faver's property,
this rear of this home. And >> foyer, thank you. And when a driver leaves proposed lot 2901 and as they curve in, their headlights going to be shining straight onto Mrs. Green's mother's property. So
in my opinion, the landscaping that's proposed, especially in those areas, is not sufficient to take care of the headlights. Um, again, extending the road, putting the driveways straight into the road would eliminate that head headlight
issue. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, Miss Green, objective number two. >> Um, so again, I don't know how much time we have, but I have um a bunch of questions, mainly regarding um the storm
order. So, um most questions go to you. So, first of all, >> yeah. >> What? >> Oh, I'm sorry. Sorry. I'm a little nervous. >> Don't be nervous. You're doing fine. >> So, the storm water volume, your point of analysis table show that total
discharge volume rising in every storm from 4,926 to 6,650 cubic feet in two-year event, which is a 35% increase. The observation for the
insta infiltration basin that do not perform a design converted volume restriction into the volume discharge compounding the problem identified. What analysis confirmation that is increased in the discharge volume does not worsen
the condition for the properties that already flood on Beverly Drive. >> Yeah, the the storm water management requirements require that we address and attenuate peak discharges and them for the two and 10 and 100year storm. And
these are for rain events that are substantially different than what we did just a few years ago for rain events up to 12 in in a in a 24-hour period and and we've complied with all of those
regulations. But the DNR canal commission application is stated is incomplete and does not recommend approval at this time for the both the basins and the groundwater moduling analysis. In addition to this information, the actual
seasonal high groundwater evaluation could not be determined. Soil logs omitted ground surface evaluations required in item two. Runoff quality, water quality, recharge, and nonstructural compliance all require
additional information to confirm. >> Yeah. And I stated earlier, we recognize that we received a review memorandum from them about a half a dozen comments and we would have to address all them to their satisfaction. >> Okay. >> Yeah.
>> Um my next question is regards to the scope of the analysis. The model analysis of 1.49 acres are approximately 4.7 acre site routed to a single point. Um, Pinoni notes the report omits the
disturbance area impress improvises, sorry, I'm nervous coverage increase and development CN calculations for storm water A1 to AD 46 Beverly Drive where I live and my mother.
It can the applicant state on record that no drainage from the analyze 3.2 acres reaches lots 23 24 25. Can you show on the granding plan with the flows
area with flow arrows where the remaining acreage drains and confirm whether any of its flow towards Beverly Drive of lots 23, 24, and 25. >> Okay. Um that sounds like there was multiple questions in there. I'll try to
address I'll say the I think the bigger question you had which was um the the analysis for storm water management the responsibility is for the areas that are being disturbed. The areas that are not being disturbed are not being changed.
So therefore the runoff from them wouldn't change. >> But the runoff so if you're going to the houses behind us are going to be elevated higher than ours. the water is going to run down to us, >> right? And and and that would be within the disturbed area. So certainly that
was part of the analysis. Part of your question, I think, referred to areas beyond the area of the on site that are beyond the area of study and the areas beyond the area of study are the areas that are not being disturbed. Um perhaps maybe what I could ask you a question.
You you referenced the Panoni letter and some deficiencies. Could you perhaps point me to the specific item in the stormwater management review? What item number you're looking at? >> Because >> um maybe I could help. >> Thank you.
>> If allowed, Mike, you might remember a prior application for a three or four lot subdivision. Um, I go by the Angus track that your office worked on. And one of the things we added was rather rather than just
analyzing the drainage to one point of interest, your office then came back and analyzed it to an adjoining homeowner. So I would suggest um that you provide at least two more points of analysis. One to the rear of Mrs. Green's property
to document existing and proposed runoff to her property and one to Mr. Foyer's rear yard. This is similar to what we've done on other applications. >> Is that something you and your your client would uh >> think we could take that under
advisement? I I was actually looking for in in this review. This is a new comment and I understand what you're saying and that's certainly something that can be done. >> And this just so you would understand and Mr. Before he would understand, Mr. Ford's office would calculate how much
water is running off onto your property specifically today and how much once if the site was improved. >> Okay. Um, one of my other questions have to do with the trees as well. Um, the plans
say that they're removing about 123 trees and only replacing 23. With the site losing over a 100 net trees and the storm water module should account for what those trees were doing. If it doesn't, the pre-development baseline is understated in comp
comparison to the post-development conditions is not accurate. Was the loss of the trees rainfall interception and groundwater uptake considered or does the module reflect only the change in the ground surface cover? >> Yeah. Um
I think when you say module you mean model and uh that's what we do. We model the stormwater. Um to answer your question specifically the um analysis does take into consideration the existing trees and the impact of them
being removed. What it doesn't take credit for is the mitigation plantings. In other words, you have existing woods today and perhaps you create substantial additional woods with the tree mitigation, but in the stormwater analysis, you actually don't take credit
for that. So, I think that uh the analysis would be conservative in that regard. And we've already agreed to to uh prepare the tree mitigation plan to the board engineer satisfaction. >> Okay. And that would likely be
additional plantings or or perhaps a contribution to the tree mitigation fund of the township if they can't be they can't fit on site. That's a township requirement. >> Okay. Um my next question is regarding the groundwater mounding. Your mounding
analysis shows 1.9 ft of groundwater rise beneath each basin decaying near zero around 50 to 60 feet. Again, the DRCC required item five and the Penoni comment 11 both require more on this. Penoni specifically requires it be
related to the basement floor elevation. Speaking of basements, Loretta's basement has flooded previously um over the years. She's owned the home over 50 years. Uh >> she >> Yes. Okay. And I live with her. the connection between the mounting analysis
that cannot be verified because the SW the SHWT is unknown per the DRCC and an already flooding basement. What is the distance from the each basin to the nearest foundation on the lots 23, 24,
and 25 that will provide the dimension exhibit confirming those homes and the new basements lie outside the mounding influence. the so the mounting analysis is done under both of the subsurface
infiltration basins. It uh assesses the impact on the groundwater with beneath the infiltration basins. Uh we've actually already within receipt of the U board engineers review within the last
24 hours assessed the groundwater mounting analysis is in the Dr drainage report and the ask was has that impact on the potential basement of the proposed dwellings which is is the the closest dwellings to these underground basins and we've already looked at that
and there would be no adverse impact. Um and certainly we've already agreed to demonstrate that to their satisfaction. >> So I would like to put on record that we have pictures um of the amount of water that sits for weeks if not uh over a
month in the yard of the water um and pictures of the water without even being flooded that just sits in the basement. We actually um had to have a basement company come in and put in seven rear bars into the wall and put in another
pump because of the water issue. It actually created a crack within our foundation. If you were to stand behind our house, you could see where the water line is. Um we've paid several times to have um the water removed from being
flooded in our basement and have lost items. Um so these are just pictures of normal rain that we've had where it's just puddles and puddles in our backyard and where we share on the other side of
us. um the water just sits with our other neighbor and it actually freezes over because the water does not absorb into the ground. We have a fence that uh for a garden and when it rained on May
23 just a little we have pictures of the water just sitting. So, we would like to put this on record so everyone is aware of um the impact that we already have and what this is going to cause even more. >> What I Mr.
>> Listen to the whole Mr. Ford before we go any further. >> Miss Green, do you have copies of these pictures for counsel? >> Um he's more than welcome to take these. >> No. The question is a do you have
pictures for council both applicants council and objectors council for their records as well as copies of pictures for the board. >> I see. >> And if we're going to start to have testimony, you're going to need to get
sworn in as a witness because you're giving testimony on the record relative to what occurred. So I'm just >> okay >> setting out the the ground rules to start. I did send David pictures today. Um, not all of these pictures, but I
sent him a lot of the important pictures in the backyard. I did not send him basement. >> Yeah, they were just sent at after like at 504 that were sent. So, we just weren't able to >> wasn't about to I'm just now that she's thrown the
planning department under the proverbial bus. Uh, no. I'm just now that she's indicated she's provided them obviously because it was after hours. Your department did not give them or circulate them to the board
for obvious reasons or put them on civic clerk or all of that. Um, >> you can scan them to me too and email them to um, David and us and we'll make sure that they get distributed appropriately. >> Appreciate it.
>> And I and I would suggest, Mr. Bernstein, it sounds like the photographs and the testimony that's going to be presented with those is beyond the engineering uh testimony that Miss Green will provide at a later date
which will give sufficient time to have the uh the photographs presented and provided to all the parties. Well, let me before we sort of break uh indicate that. Miss Green,
do any of the pictures relate to any of the testimony that Mr. Ford has provided either under direct or under crossexamination so far? >> Well, I feel it has to do with the the
basins that they want to put in and it's so-called septic. >> I won't speak for Mr. Fedun, but I suspect he's going to advise Mr. Ford not to respond until he's had a chance to look at the pictures and the
impact of it. So, while it's always fun to watch Mr. Ford testify, uh, I think Mr. Ford should be given the opportunity to review materials he's being asked to testify about before he actually does. >> Yeah.
>> Yes. I agree. >> Thank you, Mr. B. that just to back to the plan that's on the so this >> answer the question Mr. for related to the plans without the pictures. That's fine. >> Well, I'm just trying to describe some of the drainage improvements that are
proposed and I believe this is the property highlighted here. Oh, there we are. >> Yes. >> Right. Okay. So, you see the the contours show the drainage and you asked about flow arrows. This is the direction it runs off now. And just by uh
observation, you can see that there's an inlet here where where runoff from the subject property drains toward the rear of your mother's property today. There's uh swale being proposed to capture that
runoff before it gets to the property line and directed to that underground basin. So the and and I think this will be further uh uh explained and and uh the I'll say the benefits of the input or the
improvements would be illustrated by virtue of the specific analysis to the rear of your property that Mr. Mayu is suggesting. But that's by reducing the area of runoff from this site that goes into the rear of your
mother's property. It should minim or reduce the runoff to your mother's property. Now, that's not a guarantee that existing conditions and pro drainage problems that you've had for years and um I've seen many I'll say
older dwellings in town that you know my engineering solution would have been to build the house two feet higher because it was you know too close to the groundwater table with the basement. Um but that should be a a benefit by capturing the runoff and directing it
into a controlled and managed u structure and then have a discharge to the the the existing stra drainage features in Leiden uh rather than let it continue to drain through the rear of your property. M
>> Mr. Ford, before Miss Green asks, I have a couple of questions that come to mind for this. Is the property currently wooded? >> Yes. >> When is the when, if ever, is the
applicant proposing to cut the trees and install the basins? >> Uh, that wouldn't be until a construction permit is issued for the for the dwellings. So, it could be months, years
in the making before any of this could occur. >> Yes. >> I would like to state that last year um he started removing trees and digging and dug a hole and David came out
because we complained and asked him to stop. Um the hole that he dug did fill with water and he pumped it out himself. So, does know that there is a water issue. So I don't know if that's true that it will be years that
>> that wasn't construction. I don't believe what you're referring to. One of the requirements in order to develop these plans which has taken place over the last better part of a year is to do site soil testing to identify the groundwater table the permeability of the soil. It's a requirement of the
drainage report. It's in the drainage report. So there was soil testing done >> for several days. >> Oh yeah. Okay. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Yeah. That the the testing requirements um have uh you know uh by state mandate
required testing that's much more extensive and takes more time than it than it used to. It's not a simple short perk test as much anymore. It's more elaborate testing. >> Thank you for explaining.
>> Yeah. Um my question to your comments is if that fails who's responsible? >> Uh I think we discussed that point already once already with the the first objector's question uh to to to the town
engineer and the um enforcement action that could be taken by the municipality. >> Okay. So for the existing flooding um was the document existing flooding on the neighboring lots considered in the
hydraulic analysis in any way? >> Uh the uh analysis requires that we treat the address the storm water runoff from the area that's being disturbed. So, um, as far as an existing drainage
problem on a neighbor's property, that's not something that would be on the onus directly to an applicant to correct. >> So, for >> it may be a byproduct of the improvements that are being done, uh, an
enhancement or an improvement to it, but it's I I see on your mother's property, the contour intervals are spaced pretty far apart. So, Aside from perhaps the house not being built high enough above the groundwater table, the slope of the existing grade
is not such that it provides for a great enough slope to you know produce runoff. Um, right now, and this is different than say 30 years ago, the minimum slope of a lawn area is 2%. Whereas years ago, there might not have been attention paid
to that. And flatter areas do lend themselves to ponding or puddles of drain of runoff because it just isn't promoted to drain off. >> Okay. but without going on your mother's property to regrade it to provide better
drainage to to to direct the runoff um and promote the runoff. This that wouldn't necessarily change one way or the other out of this application. >> Okay. Um,
for the long-term maintenance from the applicant and operation maintenance manual, August 25th, 2025, the responsible party is private developer LLC, 480 Hillsboro Road, and the manual states that the responsibility may be
transferred to another party. The basin sits on two nearly created lots 2901 and 2902. So future individual homeowners would inherit them. Hills Township and Somerset County are granted emergency
access only or not obtained. Required by maintenance includes jet vax cleaning 2000 and work homeowners cannot perform. An estimated cost includes up to 10,000 per occurrence for outlet outfall repair
and 14 sorry it's just you know so the question is when the developers in the LLC dissolves after the buildout who is legally and financially responsible for maintaining these basins and what binding funded
mechanic mechanicism >> mechanism >> mechanism I'm sorry bond escrow and HOA guarantee given the system requires specialized equipment costs thousands per year and fail if not maintained. >> I think uh what you just read
exemplifies the change in the difference between when your mom moved in and has no such storm water management or property or obligations. And the document you just referenced uh has to have a title today of who the responsible party is. right now it's
identified as the developer and as you indicated as as as title transfers of the property that legal document that's recorded at the county clerk's office transfers with ownership of the property rightly so the property owner would be responsible
>> and what happens >> and it has >> the property owner can't afford it >> well you just heard earlier about the enforcement action that can take place >> okay and in the meantime if it fails or if it overflows, who's then responsible
if that homeowner cannot maintain it? >> Again, the township can take action. >> Those are all my questions for now. Thank you. >> Thank you, Miss Green. Before you leave, can you give the photos to Mr. Kois's
office and see whether or not they match up with what you'd previously provided? additional photos that you want the board to have, he can provide it to the board as well. >> We'll do >> at the appropriate time. >> Yes. >> And I'm assuming, David, that we'll give
Miss Green back her pictures when we're done. >> Thank you, everyone. >> So, at 10 to 10, should we open up to public questions? >> Yeah, let's open up the public. With all due respect to council, who is itching to come back, it's not his time until
after. I'm sorry. I'm not I'm not I don't want to have any questions for the board for the applicants engineer. Procedural question. We had uh my client would like to come up during the public comment portion to present some pictures. Not right now, but my procedurally, Mr. Bernstein, you mentioned that Mr. Green would need to
give pictures to the applicants engineer ahead of time. I just didn't know if I need to give them to him now. Uh, I would suggest if you plan on having your client testify at some point regarding it and for have people to be able to respond to it, yeah, it would make sense for everybody to have copies of them,
including Miss Green and Mr. Fedun and the township. >> Okay. I do you want me to introduce them now or just hand >> No, you can hand them to Mr. Kis. Okay. >> We will circulate them. If you've got an extra copy for Mr. Fidun, that's fine.
If not, um, it's one of those nights. Um, council, for the purposes of the record, >> the pictures you have just provided, who is the author of them, and when were they taken? >> Are you talking to me, council?
>> Yes, I'm talking to you. It's your pictures. >> Yes, they were taken by my client. >> When? No, he let him. >> He's a good I was going to have him introduce him on the record. Uh July 25th of 2023.
>> 23. >> Correct. >> Thank you. >> All right. Okay. Mr. K, you'll distribute. Also, don't forget Mr. Mayu.
I think at this point, Mr. Chairman, the appropriate thing is motion to open to the public for questions of Mr. uh Ford as to his engineering testimony. >> I I have a quick question. >> Unless Mr. Pson has a >> question. Thank you.
>> Mr. Ford, on uh your minor subdivision plan, uh you're referencing the key map which is page one. Uh, I'm looking at page three and it kind of came to mind when
somebody mentioned water and um, sometimes you build the houses up a little higher and I'm down to the residential zone data kind of right towards the middle bottom and at the very last bless you. Uh
maximum building height is 35 feet two and a half story. Existing condition has under 35 feet proposed. The little arrow goes the other way saying greater than 35 ft. Is
that correct? >> No. No. >> Okay. >> Yeah, we would have to comply with the height restriction. >> So there's not a variance that's going to be needed. So that could be corrected. >> Correct. >> All right. Thank you. All right. Uh motion to open motion and
second to open to public comment on Mr. Ford's engineering testimony. >> So moved. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I >> I will point out before anyone gets up that if you are represented by an objector, you cannot get up and ask Mr. Ford questions. That's what your
representatives are here for. So, and and give your give your name name and address and uh start your questions. >> You can pull it up. You can pull the thing out of the mic or or raise it. It's up to you. >> Is that good? Can you hear me?
>> David Warner, 54 Beverly Drive. Um, thank you to the board tonight for um having us here and listening. I just have a few questions uh for the engineer. I just want to make sure I heard correctly as far as your testimony
was that at at 4:30 today, you were made aware of or became aware of the 650 foot environmental easement at 490 Hillsboro Road. That unless I heard incorrectly. >> No, I think you Mr. Fodon referenced that.
>> Okay. So, you you were aware of that e. No, I within the last 24 hours is when after receiving the review memorandums uh both from the board planner and the board engineer uh it sparked us to try to develop
answers to every one of them so we could address them tonight. And that prompted the research that resulted in the discovery of a we we believe that the church had a restriction on the development of the rear of the property. That's what you're referring
to the Yeah, the conservation but we didn't we didn't become knowledgeable of a actual con recorded conservation easement until today. >> Okay. So >> we have project plans from the church. It doesn't show the conservation ement on it. So just
>> just a follow-up question to that then at 4:30 you were made aware of this two and a half hours before this meeting and then I guess you gave testimony uh regarding the development of of Lynen Road and that that could not be completed because of this easement. So
I'm just trying to figure out the timeline 4:30 you find out and here we're testifying that you've made a conclusion that that road could not be developed because of that. Yeah, the you're recognizing the the panic is that is of life of uh an engineer that gets
reports the day of a hearing. Um but seriously the the the the conclusion was our understanding you know me as an engineer is when a conservation is easement is recorded it it's in
perpetuity and it is intended to preserve a natural feature like the wooded area at the rear of the church. Now, after 4:30 at at about 9:00 tonight, the board engineer
uh presented other testimony about what could or couldn't be done in that. That's new knowledge to us as well. But but that was that's so our our um um presentation is that by virtue of a conservation easement that would
preclude disturbance of an area, the road couldn't be continued. >> Okay. Right. And >> if you want to preserve the trees, you you couldn't build a road through the trees. You'd have to disturb the trees. >> Oh, no. I understand that also, but uh I could just make the point too that if the church wasn't allowed to build 650
ft in that back property because of the trees, the lot right next door that we're talking about here tonight, we're developing all all that and essentially ripping out the trees. >> Right. Right. Yeah. And that's that's uh the church was a zoning board of
adjustment application for a use that's not permitted in the area. >> And um that was one of the conclusions of that. approval. >> Yeah. No, I I recall that that board of adjustment meeting. I was I was at it and specifically asked that question
about the road and and there was a response given there by an attorney from from Wilson and Peach. It it's archived on on your guys YouTube site um where he specifically sort of stated that um the church could not develop that road. But
but the term that he used and I have to remember it, watched it last week, was that the township could reserve the right at any point in the future to develop that road um whether it was through the easement or or the property at at 480.
Um so I I that's leading to my question of and I didn't quite understand it with with I know it wasn't your testimony but it was the the the board engineer. Who is responsible then if the road were to be extended if if the the board allowed
that? like is that the applicant's responsibility or is that the township's responsibility to kind of develop that that road? The uh typically with development, it's the construction of a public road is the applicant's responsibility, but ultimately the
township would it would be turned over as any public road just like the existing Leiden section and be the township's responsibility to >> it's perpetual maintenance. >> It's a township option to accept a
proposed road as a municipal road and I would would not want anybody to be left with the conclusion that if this road is extended to the end of the proposed lots of which it is still significant distance between both sides the township
is committee is going to run out and turn this into a township road. So for the purposes of if the road were extended to from where it is on to where Mr. Mayu is suggesting in the absence of a
township committee appro acceptance it would be a private road but and built by the developer. Built by the developer. Okay. Yeah. I just didn't quite understand that from the attorney at the 2021 meeting. He said the town could could do that. Um
>> I believe you're referring potentially to the board attorney, Mr. Anderson. >> Yes. And um I would point out that com that statements he makes like statements I make are not necessarily
binding on our clients. They're merely statements and it has to find its way into the resolution of the respective board which is why I believe the board is going to need the 2022 resolution approving the project at some point.
>> Okay. And then one just last quick question. Um, as far as the the way that the project is constructed now with with the two driveways coming off of the end of the dead end road, um, maybe a question you can't answer or I I I maybe
I'll ask it this way. Is is that a common township sort of building project in terms of a dead end rather than a culde-sac, you know, the driveways come off. Are there others in this town or that come to a dead end and you have two driveways, you know, basically separated?
>> Uh well, uh each project has to stand on its own. Um that's what we've presented on behalf of the applicant. It's been discussion about multiple oper options this evening and that would be ultimately a board
decision. >> Okay. >> All right. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> So yeah. All right. >> James Magic 12 Fern Way I'm sorry 12 Fern.
I have majority of the uh lot coverage on the southernmost I was looking at this >> need to get closer. >> Will you also be going >> along the back of the lot? I know that you addressed the one with the uh the
greens. >> Oh, okay. >> Thank you. >> Uh these water retentions I know you said mentioned a avoid any further water. There will be the retention behind the green home which would then be funneled out on when my home runs the back end of
the lot. And right now I do Okay. Right now I do have the uh runoff of which it's already taken out half my yard. So it does come off the other way. You're about 15 20 inches higher. How do we alleviate that water from a
new construction from getting larger and flooding my yard more. >> Well, uh right now the the proposal is not to disturb that rear portion of that lot. So there's not uh in order to provide some type of storm water improvement, we'd have to disturb
additional trees. Right now, we're I'm not suggesting that uh this application is going to improve your situation because we're not doing any work or changing the existing conditions back there. But that's something we I I
hear your comment and we can evaluate it. >> All right. Uh how far back off of uh Lynen Drive will the home be? You said it's not going back as far as into the wooded lot.
>> What is the depth off of Lynen Drive for the property to be developed or what have you? the the depth of that lot is approximately 330 feet and they're about half and based on the contours of the
topography. There's a drainage break where portion of the lot would drain toward you and and the portion would drain toward Lynen and all the activity is right now proposed in the area that would drains toward Lynon. That's why
the the stormwater management has been taken care of in that direction. >> Okay. I just want to make sure that after the grading is done, it doesn't come grading back into my yard again since I will be covering the entire back of this piece of property. >> Good. >> All right. Thank you.
>> You're welcome. >> Thank you. I I don't see any other public coming up for Mr. Ford, but it's 10 o'clock, 10:05. So, I'm assuming that this is going to we're going to get to a vote or do we I
I I understand we need have some planning potential planning uh issues and other items. >> Planning issues and other related items. Right. >> Um, so I'm going to ask a two-part question. One of Mr. Kis and one of Mr.
Fun. Based on the requirement, Mr. Fedun, that there is a 10day window for a planning report. How soon can your client get us a planning report? >> Mi Mr. Bernstein, perhaps we should
start with the next available date and perhaps that point might be mute mute. >> I'm assuming Mr. Done would like to get this on as soon as possible. >> Well, some of that does depend. Mr. I agree with Mr. Qu. >> That's fine. I'll leave it. >> I can't imagine you guys have another
planning board meeting in 11 days. >> No, but >> seven days. >> Are we looking at July David? >> The next available is September 3rd, 2026.
Otherwise, we have everything else is accounted for. Prior to that, >> I I want I want to point out the two issues why it's September 3rd. One, we currently have a meeting scheduled for the Thursday before Fourth of July weekend, though I know several of you
probably will not be here and there's a quorum issue. And then the question becomes whether you want to use the business meeting as a meeting. And just for everybody's edification, not sitting on the board, this board does not meet in August period irrespective of
everything else going on. That's the position this board has had as long as I've been here. That's 25 plus years. So that's so that everybody understands other than the board why we're at September. Unless the board wants to fit
this in somewhere in July, >> the only other possibility is the July 23rd business meeting. But again, that's why I didn't recommend that because this board usually doesn't go that direction.
>> Do we believe the July 9th application is actually going to get heard? >> I have reason to believe that it does. >> Okay. I'm just >> I mean we could certainly if by >> well I'm just asking because it was supposed to be next week for that. So
>> that's why I asked >> we're at the mercy of some of our applicants as you know Mr. Bernstein >> that's the reason I was inquiring. So again, the first complete blank slate that's available is September 3rd.
And you know, given some of the things that are testified to tonight and the questions are asked, we could certainly work to try to, you know, reserve that night for this for this application only. We could work towards that.
It's up to the board your recall. >> I certainly think that would be reasonable. I mean, in terms of our timing, it gives the it gives the applicant opportunity to review the photographs, the comments already from the board and the professionals, and it
gives the objectors an opportunity to do their due diligence as well. So, I certainly would support rescheduling for the early September September date. September 3rd was that you said >> and with that there would need to be an extension of the to because right now it
goes to August 26, 2026. >> Yeah. >> Okay. What would you like to >> October 31st I believe in important holidays. Assuming for the sake of this discussion that that is the board's decision, I am
placing the objectors on notice. If you're going to have an attorney, you need to retain one well in advance of the September 3rd date, and he needs to advise myself and the
board and applicants council of his involvement. Any any reports you plan on introducing for any professional have to be here at least
two weeks in advance of the September 3rd meeting so that everybody has an opportunity to review them. Mr. Ford is not doing what he described earlier between 4:30 in the afternoon and 7:30 in the evening
and that if there are issues they need to be addressed and obviously Mr. Fords is due at least 14 days in advance of the meeting as well. I'm assuming he's going to get it in well in advance of that. Um, so the reports would be due in
>> August 20th. >> August 20th. Okay. >> August 20th. Right. >> And Miss Green, I'm making this comment to you because you're not represented by council.
Please don't have counsel contact myself on September the 2nd or anytime they're choir and say, "Oh, I've just been retained because the sympathy is going to be non-existent." So, be aware.
>> Must know who he is, huh? >> What >> you know who he is? Whether I know who he is or not, I don't I I >> um I always love the phone call. Oh, I've just been retained by >> So, so just to uh out of respect for the
applicant as well, you're um doesn't seem like you're protesting too much. So, we're going to you know, our our idea here is to we'll pass a motion to extend the time of decision to October 31st. Notice of the application
carried to September 3rd, 2026 at 7:30 p.m. 7 p.m. or sooner after the matter may be heard without further notice unless Mr. Fidan, I'm going to put you on the spot, not to respond, but on the spot. If your client intends to amend
the plans based on what was provided tonight, I would suggest you get it in sooner than later. So you can put the onus on Mr. Mayu and Mr. Kois to respond in a quote
timely fashion. >> Sure. >> So motion >> it's a motion Mr. Chair me to extend application uh file number 25 PB19SV
480 Hillsboro Road LLC to Thursday September 3rd 2026 at 7 p.m. or soon thereafters the matter may be heard without further notice and extension of the time of decision to October 31st 2026.
They will for those of you in the audience you will not be receiving another green card or document from applicants council. That's the without notice. So please don't come and say nobody sent
me anything because you're not getting anything unless Mr. for Dunn has a whole new set of plans and then he may have to deal with that accordingly but otherwise don't expect it. >> I'll make the motion as stated by Mr. Bernstein.
>> Second call. >> Mr. Flag. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. Mr. >> Yes. >> Vitali Mapani. >> Yes. >> Vice Pen. >> Yes, sir. >> Yes.
Thank you. >> Thanks everybody for coming. Thank you. >> Uh motion >> meeting next week. >> There is a meeting next week. I am hoping one or two resolutions. We shall see.
Um I'm waiting for comments back actually from Mr. May or Mr. Kis on one of them and the other. I have to check where we are. Uh and only one applica and and one visit
next week. Yeah. Which may be interesting. >> No, that would be campus associates. Um I received today from a letter from council
>> on that regarding ah units. >> Regard regarding what? >> Ah. >> Oh, I got it. Yep. I haven't looked at it yet. >> Okay. They said it. That's interesting. >> I'm led to believe there's a question
whether of whe There's a question of whether or not there is one fewer. >> Right. Well, as the municipal housing less on for the township, they've been uh Oh, that's me. Hi. Um they've reached out to me and I
told them, you know, prepare everything so that I can send it to to you. But please let me know what they sent you because I have additional information. >> What I will do is I will have the office send you exactly what he sent me today. >> Thank you. >> I haven't as I will indicate to the board. I haven't even had a chance to
look at it. >> Thank you. Because they contacted me and our affordable housing uh administrative agent. >> But the message I got and I have not talked to council was I believe they are short one unit.
all this planning and they're short one unit. >> I don't know how they're short one unit. And these are my words, so I'm not characterizing David's comments or anybody else's. I don't know how you're short a unit and nobody noticed.
>> So, we'll have to talk about that about this. What they had communicated to us was had to do a bedroom distribution. Mhm. >> So they might have multiple things going on and saying that they didn't follow the settlement agreement when they
created or whoever created that. >> Again, I'm I'm only piecing together the message I got. >> Right. So they had said that, you know, basically they did the bedroom distribution using a different standard instead of basically they ignored the settlement agreement and they're asking
to go back to the settlement agreement in terms of going over a certain percentage for a number of of bedrooms and and and that was going to be a point when I spoke to our administrative agent that we wanted to defer to to you as our affordable housing council. Uh but we
wanted them to provide all the information so that you could provide guidance. >> As I said, I will send the love package. Okay. Tomorrow. >> But it is interesting timing considering they're coming. >> Well, I'm assuming that's the timing. I don't think it's
>> I'm rather happy that they sent it versus either a coming next week and saying, "Oh, by the way, >> correct." >> Or waiting till after. Yes. They came do the oh by the way. Okay. So, it's a little it's a little
more involved than than >> Well, apparently it'll be a little more involved because apparently I think they think they're done. Uh, which they're not. So, >> and then Yeah. And then we also have the ordinance 20267 Sunny Mean Landfill
Redevelopment. So, that's the referral from the township committee to >> notice notice is correct this time. notice. I don't think there was there an issue. >> Notice if you recall this >> Oh, with the investigation report. Oh, they Yeah, >> I guess one
>> we did. Yeah, yes, we did this one, right? >> This is the one you had and then, you know, on the nose. Thank you. >> I got to work with township attorney on this one and he's assuring me that it's correct. >> I'm just saying we this time it's all the things we need to do got done.
>> Yeah. So, that that one we'll we'll address and present to the board. It's clearly noticed on civic clerk, etc. that the star of next Thursday's meeting is not until July. >> Correct.
>> Okay. >> Well, I understand you've all seen. I want to make sure >> because you're going to have visitors. So, >> u >> what >> what >> I'm ter >> July 9th is is
>> Valley Road appearance of Valley Road. July 9th. >> July 9th now. >> Oh, well, yes, it's it's now going to be July 9th. >> For now. >> For now. >> For now. >> All right. We'll send notes out in case everyone doesn't have that.
>> All right. Well, Mr. Chairman, we have >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, members of the board. >> Motion to adjurnn. >> Motion to and second to adjurnn. >> All in favor? >> All right. Raw ratitz made the motion. >> I made the motion.
Whatever. >> All in favor, buddy. >> All in favor? >> Thank you.