##VIDEO ID:F4DcAVNcEhs## e e there we go sorry okay uh call to order um in accordance with the open public meetings Act njsa 10 4-10 and the regulations governing remote meetings njac notice that this meeting was provided in a notice dated January 24th 2023 that was sent to the Asbury Park Press Two River Times posted on the bulletin board and on the main access door to town hall filed in the clerk's office and posted on the Township's website uh roll call please Mr Martin Mr Martin is absent Mr Akerson here Mr Emma here Mr Fagan Mr Fagan is absent Mr King Mr King is absent Miss L Mountain here Mr Man here miss pelus m pelus is absent Mr Silverman here miss Pina Miss Pina is absent Mr Bell thank you thank you uh at this time let's stand for the Pledge of Allegiance I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all uh and a moment of silence to honor our military police and First Responders thank you uh item number one today is an application for an extension of time uh PB 2020-01 Barkley Square at Hell LLC Palmer Avenue blocks 52 lot 17 and 18 applicant seats seeks a second one-year extension of the preliminary and final major site plan approval memorialized on July 20th 2021 first one-year extension was memorialized on June 20th 2023 uh counselor thank you Mr chairman my name is Neil Zimmerman I'm an attorney with the law firm of WS mcfur and mcneel in seus New Jersey here representing Barkley Square at HED Del uh as you've indicated we got an approval in 2021 for a 60 unit development uh 12 of the units will be affordable it's part of the municipality's fair share plan part of their settlement with the fair share uh housing uh Council um we came last year and the board kindly gave us a one year extension we're here asking for a second one-year extension you may ask where have you been what's been going on and the short and short answer to the question is njd uh the original plans um which were approved by this planning board uh required certain water storm water improvements that we kept out of the freshwood of wetlands in buffer area we went to the county the county said that they wanted the uh storm water improvements changed and put some of them in the uh affected area the uh the buffer area and the uh the freshwater wetlands area we said okay we'll do that but that means we have to go back to DP and get an amendment to our freshwater wetlands permit uh D has regulations that says that they're supposed to respond to an application for a permit within 90 days but there's no limit on how long they can take to respond to an application for an amendment to a permit and we applied to D last November we still don't have an answer from them uh the main reviewer who we're waiting for doesn't return phone calls and it's just been a horror show we have a we have a um contract to sell the property but the buyer quite properly wants all the permits to be approved in place before he will close so we're asking for a one year extension okay um Kate Bob anything to say on this issue okay um it's it's a fairly routine uh request and approval you know in most instances right so before I guess before we vote uh does anyone on the board have anything to ask or say I guess maybe just a question to our professionals is there any risk in us agreeing with the extension okay all right does anyone I'd like to make a motion we extend for another year oh okay I guess for Joyce I guess she's not here Mr Akerson yes Miss L Mountain yes Mr Man yes Mr Emma yes Mr Silberman yes Mr Bell yes thank you for your time thank you sir have a good night okay um item number two this is a continued public hearing uh on application pb-2620 Heavenly Estates 26 Main Street which is block two lots 2 and 26 r-4 R zone preliminary and final major subdivision with Associated bulk variances applicant seeks a preliminary and final major subdivision to subdivide two existing Lots 92.4 acres into 15 residential lots three open space lots to be dedicated to the homeowners association and one large lot to remain undeveloped the property is located along the eastbound side of Newman Springs Road County Route 520 opposite the Vonage Technology Center and is within the rural Conservation District r-4 R zone um councelor good evening Mr chair members of the board salvator Al fury on behalf of the applicant um we've been before you now twice with uh public hearings that we were carried to tonight uh in the interim between the last hearing and tonight uh we've come up with a concept plan to attempt to address what we thought were the two largest issues that the board had Rel to the last plan that was submitted and just want to make sure they can hear it is your mic on make sure yeah it's on and U so what we're asking for tonight is a couple minutes for us to explain uh what we were proposing previously versus what we're proposing now assuming we get and this is obviously not binding on the board we're just looking for your input but assuming we get positive feedback on the redesigned plan we would then have to make a have to be engineered formally resubmitted we would have to re notice and do a new public hearing at some point um it's unusual in that this is the form based zoning that was done years ago so um some of the standards were not precise but um specifically relating to the scena corridor area that fronts on the street um Brian Murphy was has testified twice um previously I don't know Mar did you rewear him or yeah I we should I guess just it's been a while you swear to tell the whole truth nothing about the truth so help you God and I think we should just for the record get our professionals uh swearing to swear to tell the whole truth nothing about the truth so help you God for the record everyone's been swor and and just as a reminder we we did reach out between the two previous hearings and speak to MTH County about dedicating land to them the larger open space lot which they they they want us to dedicate assuming this is approved that would be a condition of approval that we dedicated to MTH County Parks um Brian it has two exhibits describe for the board what they represent please the that toly should we Mark these just have they one already yeah that one was we're up to so A5 would just be concept plan what's the DAT of that brian4 and can you highlight for the board what was changed and why uh so you can see the the roadway has obiously Chang the road still has to come in at the same location across bondage increasing the angle going to the West as we come back off that road the reason being is indicated they didn't want that buffer to be part of the Lots so slid the Lots further upid we increased those lots both them to 400t along that Cor OB we've been out there we stay flag Lots the old layout where that line would be so the the the protected areas that are in the light green would be part of an open space or HOA lot not part of the individual building lot that lot the open SP the open space lot as a result increased by almost two acres AC open that can you outline the buff for existing buffer so none of the lots are now in the buffer that's correct and Brian as a result of this are any new variances being triggered yeah the lot lot area variances for some of the lots that have beened so five the Lots two lots are the lots that back up to the F lot that's being kept so we don't Bas violate the side and and just by by way example and that's that was really that those were the changes that we're asking you to consider now in the the original plan the the light area that's the farm right that's the Farmhouse oh no yes that's yeah I'm just curious why isn't that kind of on that it's it's this lot because it's not the same shape it looks a little different shaped than this little we pushed everything kind of North and if you recall there was a couple of old uh I want to call Bar out there that have since been demolished well it was a born and you did demolish it in fact you gave us uh previous board permission to take a look at that Mammoth conservation Society you gave him permission but before they could go out and take a look at it see if it was salvageable somebody demolished somebody de was in it not me not not you personally but it was demolished correct I my understanding is yes some time ago that was sometime ago it was the same week you granted permission to go have somebody look at it yeah I don't remember the timing so potentially historic building that could have been saved so Brian to answer the question about the reconfiguration of that lot um you we just cut the back off is that what could you just do us favor and uh create that plan with the old what the barn layout is and everything that so I can see how it impacts it imp impacted by the proposed Lots Farm The Farmhouse the lot that's there like how much of that is being can you show it on this planer just by just to point it out like where did you where did it cut off you have an idea yeah basically the you can see the existing house and that's the existing house also so we maintaining that that area basically it's only the back half that cuts across angle yeah and I I would just note you know for the board I know this is like this whole this complicated with the form base code but you reminder that that's not an existing lot today you know what that's highlighted on that map I know it kind of looks like it but this is all one two technically but it's all really one large lot so they they do have discretion in terms of you know keeping that lot you know changing that lot really as long as it meets all the others guidelines it's not like that's existing today and they're going to be removing part of an active lot or anything like that it's all it's all just one place right now or one one piece of property right oh and by the way for the record uh you did not stake out the areas because I was there and there were no Stakes anywhere just letting you know that I know my guys go out flag I'm just telling we were there and there was no Flags there so uh we looked for Flags we didn't even find them laid on the ground but uh uh just want to make that clear so we didn't get the opportunity for the record to see where the stakes were because there were no Stakes know okay all right um K or Bob do you have any concerns or issues with the modification to the farm area the reduction in size that where it was originally to where they're proposing no as as Keller said it's arbitrary I don't want to say arbitrary but it's one big lot the opportunity put those lot lines where appropriate yeah and and and I would I would also you know I'll get into if the board looks favorably you know about the concept I'll be preparing a whole new review and we'll look at the variances Etc um but I would note you know as far as guidelines go um the master plan that this zoning is based on recommends that the this type of residual sort of farm area should be about double the size of the other lots and per the concept plan that I have in front of me it's that's that that lot as the new one is still about three 3.1 Acres so that's more than double the residential the typ of the new proposed subdivision Lots um the only other thing I would say is that you know I don't know the date on this concept plan the one that I was that I'm looking at is dated 6624 um and one of the Lots is under 50,000 Square F feet that's going to be the upper leftand corner um Sor I guess it's not really the best way to say but you don't the closest to the culdesac on the um the West Side 22 no um yeah 28 it says 288 yeah that one on this on on the what what we have it's that says it's going to be 47940 yeah increased that oh okay great so you know so that's um I think that that's I I I know it's kind of arbitrary when we look at you know what whether it's 50,000 or not but I think what you know what the applicant is really doing here is they're keeping the density that they had proposed the last time they were here which I would also note is still less than the density that is technically permitted on the site under the zoning ordinance and obviously as you've heard hit this meetings it's not really possible it's not really feasible to do that density anymore while it's maintaining the master plan because of the changes to the environmental factors and the environmental buffers that are required here so you know from a planning perspective I think that you know the ability the fact that that a couple bulky variances are going to be required for these lots to be um you know 55,000 square feet where where 60,000 is required Etc I think that you know it's up to their professionals to make the case but in my opinion that's something that is they're they're they're meeting the overall Spirit of the master plan even though a variance May technically be required um you know we're going to have to look at at what they come back with because they want to make sure that they meet all the setback requirements and the building envelope requirements things like driveways Etc um but I think in the grant you know because really what you're taking here is the previous plan had 60,000 square foot Lots when some of them did not have usable you know had it had redu reductions in the usable area in the backyard um and this is going to be sites where there is no conservation easement per per what's been submitted tonight and what reviewed that no conservation easements no preservation areas will be creeping into the backyards of any of these Lots so that's you know sort of the the balance I think um for the and the board will have to decide that you know their planner will testify we'll look at you know how they meet all the other requirements and I would also note that they have also increased that front buffer the the Farmland buffer um to about 400 ft which is but 400 feet is not 500 feet so if you had taken if they had taken two more Lots two more houses away from that cuz I think it says 176 ft that would put you over the 500 ft which is consistent with the master plan right it's so the conditions they they kept the same number of houses but they're still not 500 feet set back from 520 yeah and and that's for the board to we and again you know we we'll go over this again when I write another letter but the the the number 500 ft is nowhere in the master plan in the zone so it's all about visual you know it's and it's it's it's form its form rather than this specific number there um so you know that but that's going to be something for the board to weigh in as as as part of the overall variance requests if they if the if they come back with a formal presentation on this public hearing all right um anyone else have any questions or comments I think it's a nice compromise and it kind of goes along with what we were asking for some increased Frontage along 520 um it doesn't impede on any of the environmental uh conservation easements and um it's a little bit cleaner of a of a of a plan a presentation yeah and I I would just not just I was thinking as you were saying that because I think one of the things that you'll notice is a major pretty major change here is the that in internal green um you know the kind of the little Loop Road is no longer proposed and that was shown on the master plan that was a suggestion it's not a requirement um but I think you know the idea here is that it was supposed they're supposed to be accessible open space areas and you know while that's not going to be the case in that exact location um you know we the board will have the chance to ask for you know more details about how the uh County Park dedication will work you know access to Trails that might be provided um and see how that can you know maybe be arranged to to so so that there is still that um that there is still the ability to have access to a green space um even though it's it's it's more of the the outer outer portions of the property rather than internal like that and was was that going to be a storm water management Basin anyway or there's a Bas but was the was this was the um that wasn't in the middle okay I'm just moving short okay never mind so yeah that's you know these are all things that the you know they when they do a formal presentation we formal submission we'll we'll prepare a report we'll go through this and you know all for the boards determination yeah I mean look I'm just one voice uh I'm happy about the conser the buffer being uh not violated so to speak um I'm not as hung up as the 500 number as some may be I think 400 is a good reasonable number in my opinion I mean obviously we have to see more in detail uh once it's but I really don't have an issue with this right now I don't know U I will open if the board doesn't have any more questions or comments I would say the argument would be a lot stronger if you went from 15 houses to 13 houses and you're over the 500 ft that to me would be a a better stronger argument right but that's something we can we can weigh on that later um as Kate said she was clear last time that that's not like a hard and fast number it's more about you know the idea of maintaining the I love that word Kim used the bucolic nature of everything I still use that all the time cuz you Kim um so you know that's L but overall we're okay with the the concessions made so far we just need to see more detail more detail on it um and if the no more questions or questions of the of comments on the board we can open to the right you said yeah I just think if um any of the other board members have any com comments they're asking just for for comments before they go back and re-engineer everything and spend the money or they'll come back with the old plan I guess and and just ask for a vote so our while they're not binding because it'll be a brand new plan as Council said with the new notice and everything and obviously all those questions can be asked getting the input today is is somewhat important for the applicant to make a decision you know how they proceed so again not binding but you know if you have any comments it's a good time to make them yeah I agree with what's been set up here I like the the new presentation as opposed to the old I think it's much more fitting um i' be a fuller more comprehensive plan on that one yeah okay I stick with my comment it would be a much stronger application if it was 13 versus 15 houses and you lost a little Goodwill when you demolished the barn the you is not directed at me absolutely not directed at you um okay um is anyone from the public have any questions you could step up and just might give the name yeah just a comment just comment yeah just state your name and address and uh try and keep it on point okay Francine campus two country Square laying in homeown okay um my question you know I'm first coming in on this um the light green area is a conservation area like where is the conservation piece there's a Conservation Area buffera light are righted to beated okay because that I guess that's the road the circle there this is what I'm getting at that Circle no the cuac the cuac isn't that going into the conservation area that's the no okay then I'm reading the map wrong yeah I is that the isn't there a dash line that represents the actual yeah dashine yeah so I might make it little clearer for so it's not the coloring necessarily yeah coloring is basically what's going to the count okay I'm not in the first aid squad or anything but is that turnabout good enough for emergency vehicles to be able to turn around it'll have to comply with the residential site Improvement standards okay because I know in the other one it seemed like you had more room for vehicles to come in and out so my concern is is they going to still be in the room okay thank you yes thank you okay Ralph Ralph Blumenthal 41 Stony Brook wrote I think you're looking for both comments and questions sure yes okay first with regard to The Farmhouse property let me interrupt you you're got to make a comment we'll swear even though this is an informal I should swear you to tell the whole truth about the truth be uh The Farmhouse property I think I heard you say that that's three some Acres uh I'm not sure what it would take but as I'm sure you're aware to get Farmland Assessment you need at least five plus one uh I don't know what it would take to be a to modify it so that the farmer could get Farmland Assessment there be some advantage to that so I think that's something we could look at it I'm not it's it might reduce a little bit of the County area but that's something I think you should consider uh I think I'll agree with some of the comments that are made here this is clearly a step forward an improvement on some of the prior plans uh I think you're you're going with a concept rather than detailed engineering makes sense to get all the comments in before you spend too much more time on engineering uh another comment question I know you've indicated you have been in touch with the county with regard to their taking ownership of the back property and be becoming responsible for the trail on it uh in my conversations with them one thing they've been concerned about is how you get access to the trail especially at the North End what they have indic and right now it ends sort of teeing into Newman Springs Road uh they do own the significant property north of Newman Springs Road on the west east side of 34 it's just north of the sonoko gas station there's been a lot of debate as how to connect the trail on that property this one in conversation I had some weeks ago with Paul at MTH County Parks what he indicated that they have their experience has been with Trail Crossings in the middle of a major Street are not safety-wise desirable so that what they would consider and I my suggestion really you to Paul and what his thinking then was the best place to cross was at the Route 34 L with a an official crosswalk there and then to come along the south side of Newman Springs Road until you turn into the property so may want a piece of sidewalk there the key thing is safety I'll reach out to Paul from the parks yeah and uh and he hasn't seen this plan I right you know for all of us I think safety is important and if you want to develop this with a trail you want Walkers to be safe and to the extent that you as part of the details of this you can take that into I think everybody will be happier in the long run so uh progress you can't always get it all done in one day but progress compromise hearing other opinions is good so I think tonight was worthwhile thank Youk you and maybe Brian one of the questions on that Farmland question as I recall 60% of that has to be open space of this or something like that so I don't know how much room you really have beyond that you know what's being developed do do you have a percentage for us of what's going to be over 60 so significantly or just barely oh yeah so you have some potential room there if it's Farmland doesn't it does it does it's a very unique Zone yeah that would even even if it is on private property it would still count as part of the open space as long as it was held under some kind of easement okay um right that's why asking yes yeah and I would also know you know just if if they choose not to do that the the town the the township or the board can still put some kind of easement on the property even though it's not a typical like you know it might might not be a formal Farmland property but there are some options and I think that you know we'll we'll look at that when we look at the the zoning a little bit more in detail with the new plan sure how much uh Jay yell 18 Li drive so with the new lot sizes um because I don't know square feet versus Acres what's the small is it the smallest lot three three4 of an acre like roughly the Acres usually 40,000 feet so they're over an acre okay and the house sizes would be how many square feet roughly I don't know we didn't we didn't get that far okay 3700 or okay okay um I don't remember I I believe there was dumping going on in the back property for a while like I don't know septic pumping or whatever has that been solved with the D or whatever are you aware of that Jen I mean Kate I mean Kate no um I I know that many this we're gr back like two plus years I know that the township um there was a stop work order and there was some things with that I think that that's those that those um violations have been resolved um but I would you know I would defer to to sell or I I'm unaware of any recent violations so I don't know but we we'd have to check Cod well talking re two years ago when we're drinking the water that comes from what was dumped there that goes right into our drinking Supply I don't view two years ago is that far along and I I would expect that this board is fully brought up to speed on exactly what took place there where it stands yeah you're making a comment let me just swear in so make it official do you swear to tell the whole truth about the truth so hope you got yes I do so um and I'm not being cute I don't know exactly where it stands but from what I know and it's pretty public knowledge someone or some group of entities was dumping septic P I don't know exactly what it was but material amounts of stuff right on a stream or right there which was going into our drinking Supply completely not caring about our town and the people and the water we're drinking so I don't think this board can even give body language on this which you've already done until you really know what happened there what was done and where that stands if there was an investigation or whatever and were you were was your applicant the owner at that time I believe so yeah okay so that's number one number two this whole issue of knocking down the barn or whatever it was right when people were going to go to assess it that is another absolutely disgusting move okay so we have two horrible abominable moves by the owner of this property over the past let's say four years that spit in the face of this town so for you as a planning board to say oh this looks good this look good why are we bending to an applicant that has done two disgusting things to this property and spit in the face of Hell residents I don't think we should I think Mr mem and I disagree on most things I agree with Mr Emma at most there should be 13 homes on this site and then it goes through the zoning board to bend to an applicant who has done these two things is outrageous and candidly you would be embarrassed and embarrassing to this town if you bent to an applicant that did that thank you and I'd like to just respond that number one everything you just said has no relevance to a planning board application there are enforcement issues that the town can take enforcement action but this board can't consider um a dumping act on this property this is a zoning application not a a bad person good person application so I know psychologically it may have an impact but legally has no well according to what we were told the master plan it's an art or whatever I think these decisions could be an art so I respect what you're saying I also respect that I believe most of you are hell residents and you would be doing a great disservice in the art of all this to Grant any sort of flexibility on that artsy 500 foot setback thank you well first let me say this dumping thing we can look into um I'm not sure are you saying that they did The Dumping you know that they did The Dumping I'm just saying yeah I would just I would note that the only dumping that I'm aware of was a they were doing soil fill and excavation about two and a half years ago prior to any type of approval um the township became aware of it sto work order uh the freeold soil conservation was involved and my understanding is that that's that's been resolved and that no more of that soil dumping I'm not aware of any other thing anything else that's taking place on the property yeah I'm not suggesting it continued I'm suggesting it was going on from what I understand it was a material amount we don't know exactly what sort of soils were put there that goes right into our drinking Supply um and candidly for you guys not to be aware of that is pretty bad and I think I think it's your job to make them fully aware of exact what took place there because apparently it's the same applicant who knocked down that Barn once again I don't think you saying you know that for a fact that they did that dumping right you're accusing them of this dumping no I'm not well that's you're say said they was the owner this dumping took place yeah but people dump things illegally in other people's property all over the place so to make an accusation to look I'm not listen it's it is an Enforcement issue really separate from I would note to to Jay if you and and this I'm I I don't know the details if you if you're curious to what the township did file an Oprah request with the township file one with Freehold soil see if they can provide you the exact information because I don't have it I think this board should be made aware of what took place there a stop a stop work order is not an order to remediate the the property because there was dumping there we it's all an agreement right so what is going to be done to remediate The Dumping that was back was dumped Ron I believe I I I we're all getting I'll have we'll have when we come back we'll have answers again I don't think it's relevant to the application but since it's brought up we'll get you answers yes but I'm not going to debate it tonight I agree I would just note that Freehold Soil District was involved at that time and this is a lot of this is in their jurisdiction um outside of you know this board so um and you know I would also just know you know this this has been a been a lot of time since this application um was initially uh submitted and the board is working you know they they've been trying they've caught up and you know we're trying to just to get them as as in as as knowledgeable as possible over the last couple years so I I agree with that but this board should have been made very well aware and it should be on the tip of their tongue exactly what took place on that property thank you okay uh any more questions or comments okay I get yeah I have a quick question with the New Concept plan the lot coverage it it's still it's 25% is that the each individual lot is permitted and that we're talking about just the residential lots is permitted to have no more than 25% impervious coverage um and that actually I was about to make a comment that I you know I know that you don't have all of the details but I would appreciate I think the board would appreciate when you resubmit the plan if you could go through in detail the um the bulk standards that are at um 60 excuse me 30- 61 B2 for the green estate house and that includes you know providing you know it has stuff with like the driveway locations driveway setback um the 25% loot coverage for each lot um you know just the building envelope and all of those things um you know and I'm I'm happy to to help you know to have discuss those I know they're pretty it it's only kind of unique because of the the nature yeah Green Estate House versus R4 or something like that but I think that having all of those would be helpful sure just com I've lived in home years most of neighborhood I don't know any neighborhood that has a straight on each side of thead almost all the neighborhoods have have an aesthetic to them where there's curved roads there's open spaces and so forth just from an aesthetic I understand that there's setbacks I understand that there's all these other aspects that we have to deal with one of the nice things about the town is that the neighborhoods are set up in such a way where it's a very uh family Orient oriented areas where when it appears that there was a nice sort of area for people to gather and so forth me personally just looking at a straight road that with houses on either side of the road and a CAC on the back end does not appear to be appear to me to be in in comp or sort of what the neighborhoods of home have looked like were looking for homes here it was not that so just from athetic standpoint I don't think that the new proposal has the same AES neighbor but if they took away the two homes that run is petitioning or saying you would still have that same look right so you know yeah okay yeah yeah I just don't think there's given the the site limitations there's many options here I'm sure they would rather have the windy kind of Roads kind of thing but that's the problem there's not a lot of space there so we don't have a lot of options here yeah yeah okay um g r g Ron no I just have one one final request for no I gotta say sorry you could to James's point you could make it aesthetically more pleasing but again would reduce the number of hous houses of course and we could build one house and it would be beautiful but yeah I you know you know sitting up here is sometimes a very tough job because uh you have people at the Town who have their own opinions on certain things and we are supposed to leave our opinions sort of behind us and try and Rule what's we feel is in the best interest of our of Our Town based you right based on what's presented and based on the rules right and the rules don't uh don't consider whether you like the guy or not because he did something wrong um if this guy did intentionally knock down a barn if he did intentionally do dumping I will say that we maybe we shouldn't give anything because he wasn't acting in the best interest of the town so we shouldn't act in the best interest of them but there's no proof yet that they did both right that's what I understand I think the barn the barn thing is pretty pretty yeah the I mean the applicant owned it at that time we don't know whether he did it but he owned it so it's his now responsibility so if they choose to develop a piece of land in accordance with the rules and regulations that are in place and they're doing things exactly as it's laid out that's that's what their I believe that's what their right is for the most part um and we should act uh reasonably to them like any other Town member that wanted to build a pool in their backyard maybe and they didn't have the setback and you know as long as it's reasonable right so in my opinion I think it's okay to go forward um with the development uh of the next phase of work um as we all said it's a step in the right direction I think uh you have a little work to do as far as with you know showing that what happened with that land in the back The Dumping maybe all of us should be educated on it I just don't disagree with that uh with that town member so um I guess Kate had something El say oh did she well M it was just it was more of a technical comment um which is that I would request you know this in the next set of drawings I think this will help a lot of we've heard a lot of questions about this just to make sure just some kind of mapping or some kind of uh drawing that differentiates um you know what the proposed open space lot is versus what the actual environmentally constrainted area is because it's no longer going to be a conservation easement because all of those parts are going to now be in the overall open space slot but the open space lot is also larger than the in than the constrained areas so I think that that will be really helpful for everybody um you know just you know just Just sh just different shadings yeah and that yeah okay and just just call it the preservation area thanks could we also ask for the the illegal dumpings to be where it is and how so we can see how how large that area is that we're talking about on the drawings if you look at this it's you wouldn't even know that there's a legal dumping going that went on there we're not we're not agreeing that there was illegal dumping I I don't know what happened potential illegal dumping so and again I don't know how that has anything to do with a planning board application so it it doesn't but if if someone who owned the land did something that was detrial to the town that's something we should but if I if I put an addition on my house and don't get a permit and then I go to the board and say I need a variance you don't penalize the guy for not getting a permit you have to look at the application as if you weren't there but we're going to get you answers I'm you're not going to we're not going to ignore it I just don't know if we're going to highlight it stars on it to show you what we're going to get you answers and I my recollection and it's not very good unfortunately is that I think it was clean fill that was dump there I don't think there was contamination or anything or there would have been enforcement action beyond what happened but we'll get answers thank you okay anything else if not um yes ma'am you want to come up and say something y frene campus 2 Country Squire Lane just um in reference to the lots and the size of the house are you going to make sure that those people can put in a swimming pool because I would imagine if you buy a big house in hell you're going to want to put in a pool and a nice patio we're going to show we'll show you we'll probably take the smallest lot and show you what could be developed there keep in mind the the fact that people want pools and decks and patios in home most people want it and so just when you're doing that so that you don't develop a development that really doesn't fit in Hell a big house and then they can't put in a pool without and you having easements there and everything so that's and just so you so we understand so we've had that here or the Zona board B works is a great example you know they built beautiful new homes on the home sites and they maxed out some of those houses where they they couldn't come in for pool unless they got a variant so I mean we've seen it before whether this board the that's where that question I think is coming from no it's reasonable I had someone I had someone call me on a 60 lot subdivision and they all want to make their patios larger than what the ordinance requires so they want to file a 60 application to make larger patios I said I'm not getting involved in it because you have drainage issues you have dear maybe D variants so we agree you should there should be we'll show you the L and we'll even agree as a condition of approval sooning we get to that to to to allow some percentage of each lot for those amenities so that everybody's covered and you won't have to worry about it okay well good so I just if I it's okay s do you have enough feedback from this board do um I'll send the letter granting the board an extension of the time I'm not sure how long it's going to take for Brian to do the engineering but we probably won't be here till next year we'll file this year but I doubt we'll get thir this year we'll see okay and you're and you're going to Reen notice regardless we re notice no matter what yes thank you all appreciate your input thank you all right so um no Prof no professional reports to right to discuss we're all good yeah one other thing I must have mixed it up my stuff all right uh item number three administrative approval Kimco Golf Galaxy home Del Tom Center former bomal applicant to change the front swing door with an automatic door replace the sign and minor signage at the end of a few parking stalls identifying them for takeout and expecting mothers within home Del toown Center previously approved by the TRC on August 20th 2024 okay is someone speaking no no I think just it's just there for to tell us about it right it's been done in we're ratifying it I mean it's really right under the the global global approval that came AC Street he allowed certain things like minor changes to signage col those to be done administra as well as uh changes to doors minor changes minor doors so this was deemed to fall within that old resolution and uh I think it's just far information that's more so yep okay all right so no we don't what's that we don't need a motion was just informational to the board okay so we need a motion to dismiss right correct so okay second second who made the motion I'm sorry to dis to dismiss or close thank you K all right bra's all over the place so