Check. Check. Okay. Is everyone ready? >> Uh, yes. >> Welcome everyone to the February 4th, 2026 zoning board meeting of Homedale Township. Um, can we have a call to order? Okay. I hereby announce pursuant to section five of the open public
meetings act that adequate notice of this meeting has been transmitted on January 14 2026 by the board administrative officer to the Asbury Park Press, the Two River Times, the Township Clerk, and has been posted in the meeting room and in the entrance
hall and town hall pursuant to section 13 of the Open Public Meetings Act. >> Thank you, Francine. Uh, Ireina, could we have a roll call, please? >> Mr. Burkel, >> present. >> Miss Campus, >> present. >> Miss Gerard, >> present. >> Mr. Luchiani, >> present.
>> Mr. Murzoka, absent. Mr. Gian Paulo, >> he just he's walking in right now. >> Okay. Mr. Gian Paulo is present. Mr. Orphanita Pulos >> here. >> Miss Castello absent. And Mr. Arnon >> here. >> Is present. Thank you. >> Thank you, Arena. Could we all please
stand for the pledge of allegiance and remain standing for a moment of silence to honor the military, police, and our first responders to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands one nation indivisibley
and justice for all. Okay. Um, so Irene, I believe we have a couple of resolutions to address before we get into the, uh, the heart of the meeting. >> That's correct, Mr. Chairman. >> Okay. So, um, uh, France Francie, do you want
to read item number one? Item one, resolution number 2026-04, Jason Dulo, 3 Eagle Hill Road, lot 3.02 in block 21 to permit the installation of a whole house generator on the
property with the C variances outside of 6 foot maximum. >> Uh Marty, do you want to just kind of give a quick summary for the board of any um conditions? >> There's no conditions on that on either one tonight. So there's no uh specific
conditions. Um this was the generators if you remember. Yeah. So this was the one that's in the rear yard. Uh so >> okay. Does uh the board have any uh did you get a chance to review everything? All the resolutions uh proper. >> If we have no changes to the resolution
number one, uh can we have a motion to vote on it, please? >> Motion to accept. >> I'll second. >> Thank you. >> Eligible to Mr. Burkel. >> Yes. Miss Campus. Yes. Miss Ghard. >> Yes. >> Mr. Orphan Polos. >> Yes. >> Mr. Gollo.
>> Yes. >> Mr. Luchiani. >> Yes. >> Mr. Arnon. >> The resolution number 2026-04 has successfully passed >> actually one other matter uh administrative matter. We had to sit Sal Arno. >> That's correct. Thank you. >> For um we're seating him for
>> Mr. Marzoka. >> That's correct. Thank you. >> Thank you. Uh Francine, do you want to read item number two, please? >> Yes. Resolution 2026-04, Nicholas Petriello, 34 Bayberry Drive, lot 32 in block 58.02
with the C variances to permit the location of the generator outside of a 6 foot maximum. >> Thank you, Francine. >> And again, no conditions on this, no special. >> Okay. Uh any comments from the board on this application, this resolution? No,
just that I think I think that uh there was a real question as to why we should even have gotten gotten this. >> Thank you, Jean. Um can I have a motion to vote on this resolution? >> I vote to uh approve the resolution.
>> I'll accept that. >> Second it. >> Okay, we have a second. >> Eligible to vote. Miss Campus >> here. Yes. >> Miss Ghard. >> Yes. >> Uh Mr. Mr. Oranito Pulos. >> Yes. >> Mr. Luchiani. >> Yes. >> Mr. Arnon. >> Yes. >> Uh Mr. Gian Paulo.
>> Yes. >> And Mr. Burkel. >> Yes. >> Thank you. Resolution number 2026-05 has successfully passed. >> Okay. So, next on the agenda, we have two meeting uh minutes from two previous meetings on January 2nd uh 7th, sorry, January 7th, 2026. Has everyone on the
board been able to review those minutes? Any edits or comments on those? All right, Ireina, if we can um actually >> motion and second, please. >> Motion on the January 7th, uh 2026 minutes. >> I'll move to approve the January 7th,
2026 minutes. >> And I'll second it. >> Eligible to vote. Miss Campus. >> Yes. >> Miss Ghard. >> Yes. >> Mr. Orphanita Pulos. >> Yes. >> Mr. Luchiani. >> Yes. >> Mr. Arnon, >> yes.
Uh, Mr. uh, Jolom. >> Yes. >> And Mr. Burkel. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> All right. Um, number two, the January 21st, 2026 uh, board minutes. >> 2021.
>> 2021. Sorry. January 21. Uh, can I have do any comments from the board on any ed edits or changes? If not, can we have a motion to approve the January 21st, 2026 minutes? >> I'll motion to approve the January
20st, 2026 minutes. >> I'll second them. >> Eligible to vote. Miss Campus, >> yes. >> Miss Gherard, >> yes. >> Mr. Orphanita Pulos, >> yes. >> Mr. Luchian, >> yes. >> Mr. Arnon, >> yes. >> Uh, Mr. Gianolo, >> yes.
>> And Mr. Burkel. For the record, uh January 7th and January 21st, 2026, minutes have been successfully adopted. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you, Arena. Um moving on to the public hearing. We have two items to discuss tonight. Uh two applications. Um
Francine, do you want to read item number one? Application number one. >> Item number one, Voyant Beauty LLC, block 50.31, lot 76.0. 1
2182 State Highway 35, Homedale, New Jersey 07733 C1 zone. The applicant now proposes installing two 25 foot by 12t hazardous
material storage lockers on an existing slab on grade within the front yard of the site. The proposed setbacks of these accessory structures appear to be 213 ft. As part of the site plan application, applicant seeks a variance
to permit these accessory structures to be in the front yard together with such other variances, waiverss as may be required by the board and its professional. >> Okay. Thank you, Francine. Uh, Miss Keller and Mr. Herman, do you want to
swear in swear our professionals. >> Okay. >> Okay. So, Marty's going to swear you on >> for both hearings tonight. You swear to tell the truth about the truth. So, I hope you got for the record. Our professionals have been sworn >> and just Mr. Gail, we like to sometimes the board likes to ask our professionals
to give a quick summary and I think that's what he's doing. So, >> welcome a summary. One minute we'll get to it. >> Um, >> so Mrs. Keller. >> Yeah, sure. Um, I'm happy to do this because I think it's mostly planning related. So, just a quick backstory here. Uh, this application and you know
this due to a conflu of events, we originally thought this was a planning board application. Um, you know, this site obviously this site has been an industrial site for a long time on Route 35. It's one of the last major pretty much the last major one in the township and it's located in the CI commercial industrial zone. However, at some point
a while ago, some certain provisions were added that modified what type of uses could be at in the CI zone. and this type of use um that the applicant is involved in which is um you know I'll let them go into it a little more but basically it's fragrance manufacturing
and that's one of the things that's not permitted in this zone. So, this operation predates that zoning ordinance, but so they even though they're here for a relatively minor uh change to the site, they're putting in um you know, basically storage lockers
um that for for uh you know, use on the site for their manufacturing operation that constitutes a D2 variance for the expansion of a non-conforming use. So, it's not a brand new D1 variance. This again this this site even and this this
site and this use itself predates um that zoning ordinance and the applicant did previously um what year was it? Uh 2013 received a similar um uh re received a D2 variance for that for the something similar because of the
way that the zoning is written. So, you know, we'll let them put their testimony on as to what exactly the expansion um is going to entail. Um, but it is a pre-existing non-conforming use and as far as I'm I'm aware, it's not they're not proposing to make substantial changes to that use. They are just
proposing to add to outdoor storage lockers. Um, the the storage lockers are also in the front yard where accessory structures are not permitted. Um, it's kind of a the way that the site is oriented, it's a little I'll let them talk about that as well,
but it's it's kind of a unique layout. It's not, you know, something it's not like like directly in the front yard. So, um that is kind of the summary and that's why this applicant is here tonight for the D2 variance. Uh preliminary is it preliminary and final
or minor? Um it's just minor site plan approval because they're not um they're not adding um more impervious coverage or no use that needs more parking. It's just minor site plan approval with the D2 use variance and at least one C variance. >> Okay. Thank you, Miss Keller. Mr.
Herman, is there anything you want to add to that? The only thing I want to add is uh other than what Keith testified to is to the planning attributes from a site plan standpoint, they're just adding a locker uh onto an existing imperous surface.
There's really no sight disturbance or any thing having to do with drainage or disturbance or you know sedd permits or anything like that required. >> Okay. Thank you. >> And that's why it's minor as well because they're putting it on an existing imperous area. So that's a it's
not like they're taking up grass. >> Not that there's much grass on the site. So that's it. Thanks. >> Thank you. Okay. So Marty, should we swear in Mr. Gail? >> No, he not swear in, but we'll swear in his witness. What he gives his little introduction. >> We can swear in if you want, but
>> we swear a lot here, but we swear a lot. No, not necessary. >> So Mr. Gail, if you want to uh begin your testimony >> um presentation, >> let me uh introduce uh Mr. Adler. He's the architect. These are his plans that are up on the wall.
>> These are his plans that are up on your screens. If we could have Mr. Adler sworn in. >> Ready. To tell the truth, nothing but truth to help you out with regard. >> I do. >> So, if you could just spell your name and >> ask.
>> Robert W. Adler. A D L E R. >> Mr. Adler, you're a licensed architect in the state of New Jersey. >> I am. Can you give the board the benefit of your educational background? >> Yes. I received my degree in architecture from Cornell University in
1986. Started my practice in 1989. I've been in practice now for 36 years. I have testified before this board. I think the first time was probably about 32 years ago. Um, but it has been admittedly probably a couple of decades since the last time I had to present to
this board. Um, but I present to boards 15 or 20 times a year. Uh so I have uh experience in the and the knowledge and the uh the license. >> I would offer Mr. Adler as as a uh expert witness in regard to this application. And before I jump that I'd
also Mr. Fleger if you would the board acknowledges receipt of the publication and notices to the property owners within 200 feet and has jurisdiction to go forward with this matter. If I can just get that clarified. >> Yes. So we do have the notice. Thank you
very much. >> Yeah, I'm actually going to say does the board have any questions for or comments on Mr. Adler's qualifications? >> Okay, >> are fine. >> He's fine. >> Um, are there Mr. Adler, do you uh or
the board, do you see any conflicts up here with anyone on the board? >> I do not. >> And anyone from the board have any conflicts with the applicant? >> Okay. >> All right. So, Mr. Gail, if you want to. >> Thank you. So we'll we'll accept um Mr. Adler's credentials as the planner.
>> Thank you. >> As the architect u Mr. Adler, if you would, you were retained by Voyant in connection with this application. >> Yes, I was. >> Can you give the underlying basis of the nature of your employment what you were intended to review at the site?
>> Yes, it was simply for the the matter of as was uh presented a moment ago by the poor professionals uh that the uh um the applicant is seeking to create or place a couple of lockers uh on the on the
site. Um the um the the lockers are 25'2 in by 9'2 in in plan. Uh they are 11'4 in tall. Um there in lies one of our variances because you have a maximum requirement of 10 ft for accessory structures. Um, and these lockers, while
they are presently pre-manufactured and have been used in other locations, are being brought or have been brought to this location to put on existing uh concrete slabs that are already there. They're 8-in thick structural slabs. Um, these these lockers are um going to
be refurbished, so they'll be refinished and aesthetically uh uh clean and and and appealing. um they hold about 5,280 gallons of the uh the product that they'll be storing in there. And those product will be stored in either drums or what they call
totes, which are more rectangular uh containers uh that can stack in there. And they'll have about 20 of those containers within each one. Um I will show you I actually have photos of what they look like. Uh this is the the locker on the screen here um in a closed
position. Um you can see has a roll down door on it. And as I said, these are going to get refinished as well, so they're a bit more attractive. And then when they're open, you can see again that they are um just a large open space. Uh but they are insulated. They are um actually blast proof. Um they're
they're very robust uh elements. Um and they're heavy. Uh but the 8in slabs on which they'll be set is more than adequate for them. Um these um these units will be um will be set like as was noted before on uh in an area where we
already have full impervious condition. Uh so it doesn't change any of our impervious numbers. It does not change our drainage conditions. Um they're accessed uh where there's an existing truck ramp that goes to a loading dock. And so again, we're not changing even our circulation patterns or parking
requirements. Um so it's it's very minimally impacting. Uh and then in front of them, in other words, between the highway and uh and these lockers is already uh a rather dense and heavy uh hedge, evergreen hedge. So be I think
well buffered as well. Um and then there's fencing around and what we're proposing to add are some uh ballards so that they're also protected from impact. Uh if somebody is not great at driving as they pull into the truck ramp, um they'll hit these ballards before they
hit the uh the lockers. >> Mr. Hadler, those ballers were added to the site at the request of the fire official and we've complied with all of his concerns in his letter to us. >> That's correct. Uh and they will be they will be placed along if I can just zoom
in a little bit more along the edge of these here and here. So that uh you can see they they'll they'll protect from that circulation pattern. >> And so that we're also clear, these units are already on site and have been for a year now. They've been labeled as not in operation until we get an
approval from the board. But if we were talking about a visibility of these lockers from any of the surrounding properties or from Highway 35, if they haven't noticed them by now, nothing's going to change. They've been there for a year. >> That's correct. That's correct. Um they
are uh proposed to be at 213 foot 5 in from the property line. Um again, a little bit further from the highway as your property line is inset from the actual highway. Um and this issue about them being in the front yard. I think look by all um uh sense of how it feels
placed. It is in front of the building but technically your front yard is actually from the nearest point of the front of the building to the highway and they are set behind that point. But out of an abundance of caution we felt it best to go ahead and and if the board feels that it's better as a variance
we'd keep that as a variance. But the reality is, as you can see, um, that this point right here would actually be the front of the building and the front yard would be from that distance to your lot line. So, this is set behind that. Um,
>> well, to be clear, Mr. Adler, >> the setback for this zone is 100 ft. >> Correct. So, it's >> existing structure is approximately 235 feet. double what would have been required.
And the fact that we're just a little bit closer to the street than the 235 is what generates this as being in the front yard. >> Well, and yes, and the 235 is really to the portion in which we are in front. Um the portion of the building that is closest is more like around 200 ft. So
we're not as close as the closest point of the building. So uh but we are legitimately in front of part of the building. So it it feels like it's the front uh in front of the building in the front yard. Um there I think it's also important to note the uh the distance to
any residential. Um so I've got a a map here of um of the uh of the site and you can see this is the the uh uh the location where they're proposed lockers. This is Route 35. The nearest
residential lot is here at 490 ft away on the other side of the highway. The other direction we are about 860 ft to the next location of of meeting a a lot line for residential and that is on the other side of a railroad track and it is
behind the building. So from that location, one would not even see this location where we're proposing to place these. So I think it is incredibly incidental and invisible to any residential uh aspect that's nearby. >> Mr. Adler, is this particular site
particularly suitable for the proposed expansion of the existing use? >> I would say it is. I think that uh what we're proposing here is not only suitable, it's going to improve our um our storage and our safety. It's going to improve our circulation for this
particular product and how it's used. Um I think that the um the variances of potential front yard uh use of this uh accessory structure and of the building height of this unit at 11.33 ft where 10
is is required is sitting in front of a building that is multiple stories and I think is very incidental and I think that the benefits of the uh of the circulation and the safety outweigh any detriments from those variances. >> Can the D2 variance which was referenced
by the board's Can the D2 variance which was identified by the board's planner um uh be granted without causing any substantial negative detriment to the public good or impair the intent and purpose of the municipal
zoning? >> Yes, that is my opinion. >> What would what would any negative impact be? I >> I I think only would be by definition of the variances that they're non-conforming. Uh but I don't see any actual negative impact functionally, visually etc.
>> Uh the existing site has exterior lighting. Is any proposed changes to the exterior lighting or landscaping being included in this site plan? >> No, there's none. >> That's all that's all that I have of the architect.
Uh and I would open it to the board and members of the uh audience should they have further. We'll we'll do the Yeah, we'll do the board first. Um Francine, it looks like you have a question. >> First of all, you said these lockers are in there already. They're just not being
used. >> That's correct. They were delivered there a long time ago. Um our expectation, we didn't actually think they were going to represent a variance. So, we were beginning the process and then when we found it was, we put them in, you know, left them as as unoccupied and unused. what you're going to put in
there now, where has it been before or or has nothing hazardous been stored on that site before and now you're proposing to put hazardous material on that site? >> So, I'm definitely not an expert in their their system and their process. Um, but these these products that will
be in those totes inside the lockers is something that they've used they are using presently on site. Um and they are stored within the building to my knowledge right now and it is much safer for them to be inside these lockers. >> So same materials are being stored on
site. They've just been in the building rather in the than in these storage lockers. That's >> and you me you're mentioning that it's safer for them to be in the lockers. And why is that? Um there is a flammable nature to the the chemicals that are there and uh better that they are not
within the whole building but separated outside of the building and better that they are in a fireproof blast proof enclosure >> and will this enable the manufacturer to store more than they're storing currently in the building? Are we
expanding the amount of hazardous material that will be on that site because you now have these storage units? I I do not believe it changes that. Uh but again, I don't know their system. >> The answer to that is yes. >> Oh, it is. Okay. >> There's in there is there are materials
currently stored inside of the building. They've been the subject matter of prior approvals before this board. that remains unchanged and we the applicant could have expanded additional storage inside the building and instead of doing
that has brought these lockers from another facility. I think they came like two years ago and it was the intent if we were going to store additional chemical materials to do so to the exterior of the building rather than
expand the the uh materials currently stored inside. So, yes, there's an expansion, which is why your planner identified this as an expansion of a non-conforming use. The expansion is limited. Uh there's been testimony that
we're dealing with about 5,500 gallons, so a total of 11,000 additional gallons, but it would be outdoor storage within these facilities. And I have with me someone to testify as to the nature of
any proposed risk and the fact that all of these lockers comply with literally all of the federal statutes that are required for this type of storage. It's not like a shed that you buy at Costco and put in your backyard. It's significantly greater than that. And that's what the next witness would
testify to. In other words, >> what you're saying is these lockers are made to store hazardous material. >> I would say it, but it would be meaningless, but my expert will say it. It will have greater meaning. >> Yes, they are. And they will have even they'll have fire sprinklers in them as
well. So, yeah. >> Yeah. Francine, I would also just note um and we'll we'll you know we can talk more about it if their their witness wants to testify, but um you know be the this is a zone that does allow some storage stuff but in excuse me um hazardous excuse me some manufacturing
but not hazardous. I also misspoke before it's not the CI zone. It's the LIH low impact highway but um point still stands. Um but the township also has general performance standards for general industrial uses etc. Those are not something we see that often at this board, but it's 30-87.
And if you look at number two of my letter, one of those um items for performance um regulations is the storage of potentially hazardous materials. And one of the things that's required is that the the fire the fire official, the township fire official has
to specifically approve everything. and we just got a letter on um I believe it's dated like the 29th or so from Dave Olsen who goes through um all of the specs of it and basically said so you know that was that was going to be something that I was going to ask about tonight if we hadn't gotten that letter
but so that that's one of the other protections that we have and he's not Dave's not here to testify but we do have his letter stating all of those things. >> Thank you. I saw what that letter >> that that's what that was in response to because usually we don't get letters like that because about just about what the use is but it's was because of that
specific performance standard. >> Thank you. Um, I'm sorry. The other thing that I will note for the board is that the way that the so the the the reason that we are looking for that that I just the the the accessory structure in a front yard is just the way the ordinance is written
and this is from I think it's uh uh section 30-54 which is regulates accessory structures for every zone in the township. So it's not you know it's for residential properties, it's everything but the way that it's worded is that accessory structures have to be in the side or rear yard. So, you know,
I I agree with the testimony that this is screened. It's not behind, you know, it's not at the direct front of the building, but it's also not in the side or rear yard. And so, that's why we're we're requesting that variance. Um, but I agree that it is, you know, it's set back over 200 feet. It's um, you know,
there is landscaping there, etc. >> Any other questions or comments from the board? >> Yep, I do. Can you blow that one hop to me so we can see that area real close? My question has to do what I see there. Keep blowing it up until we get nice and
big. That little square where the tanks are. >> Is that good? >> Bigger. Okay. So, so in this diagram, at least my Google one, you put the black uh where they're going to go. It shows the two there's two tanks going next to
each other. Those are the two tanks that you're going to relocate one of them. So, it's on an angle like that. Because you see that white right underneath the one that you're pointing to that space that's that's the two storage units one next to each other right now. >> They're not placed currently the way we
intend to place them and have them on these drawings. That's correct. >> So the place the way they are today that's not the way they're going to be. You're going to move them so they are like that. >> That's correct. >> Okay. That's my question. >> Yes. >> Simple. >> Good catch.
>> This is Did we have this on file or is this something been marked? I don't think this was submitted. So, we have to mark that. >> We'll call the What are we going to call this? We'll call it A1. A1. How do you What do you describe? >> Uh aerial photo of the subject site,
>> but but it has the site it has portraits of the site plan on it. >> It was on a It was on a plan, right? >> We have the the act the location is on the plan. We have We do have that, but we don't have the on the aerial, I don't believe. >> Okay. >> I would mark it. >> Yes. >> And if you could just send me email me
this PDF tomorrow morning. >> Sure. Thank you. That's all I have. >> Thank you, Dimmitri. Any other questions from the board? >> Yeah, just one question. Uh there's no other
logical place to put it like on the side or on the back that would agree with the ordinance. In terms of the interior functionality and where the chemicals are used within the building and their means and and methods of transporting within the building, this made the most
sense. Um, they'll retrieve uh these chemicals, these totes using a forklift. And the area for this is much more uh suitable for operating that than any of the side or rear yard locations. And it is right by an access uh into the
building for a forklift. So, it made the most sense. >> And Mr. or this this is this is a multi-tenant building, right? Or is no? >> Yes, >> it Yeah, it is. Right. >> Yeah, there's some business use as well. >> Yeah. So, yeah, because I'm looking on the side because I see there's shop, right? Trucks on the side. Yeah. So,
that's what I thought. So, um so that's another reason is that this happens to be the portion of the site where Voyant has their access points. >> Settle that whole side. >> Yeah, the whole other side of Saker. That's what I thought. Okay. >> Good. So,
>> yeah. Uh where is the access point uh from where you're going to take these materials in the building to these lockers? It is let me actually switch to so you can see Okay. So, they actually come in and out
through this on the ramp and into these. So, it's a small opening, but small uh door, a small uh >> seat is >> I believe weird doesn't blow up to that. Sorry. Okay,
>> you good? >> I I had a question. Could you go back to the uh the picture you where Demetri was asking some questions? >> The color one. >> The color one. Yeah. With the where it showed the two um thing right there. So the Ballards. Um this is the fire chief's request. Is that is that correct? the Can you show me where the
ballards are going? It's kind of like pointing and >> I can actually show you better on the drawing here. So on this blowup, you can see we have ballards along here. >> And where is 35 in in relation to those ballard? That's what I'm trying to I'm I'm I'm assuming the ballards are there
in case there was an errant car that speared off and was going to hit one of these. >> No, this is very far from 35. 35 is the top of the page with 213 feet away. So, this is really about when we've got a forklift accessing this storage locker, as they're backing up, we don't want
them to accidentally bang into this locker. And also, as they're coming into this area this way, we want to keep them away from this locker. So, these are here. >> The ballards are right there. Okay. >> And right here. >> Okay. Okay. >> Mr. Gall, sorry to be a pain, but this one also was not submitted. Correct. This has been revised.
>> I'm sorry. >> This this this plan has not been submitted. It's been revised since it was submitted. >> I believe the revision showing the Ballards was submitted. It's a one page submission. >> Doesn't look familiar. >> Yeah, I don't think >> Yeah, I don't think so. >> Let's just mark it to be safe A2. We'll
mark it A2. >> What's it dated? >> Looks like the revision was October 15. >> Okay. Maybe. >> And I thought I sent an email. I could be wrong. I thought I sent an email to someone. >> That's okay. It's It's not a It's not a big deal. I just want to make sure because I get it either way. I would
mark a >> but visually I I don't recognize this. >> Okay. >> Okay. Sorry about that. Thanks, >> Mr. Rather. In terms of the location to bring the materials into the building, my understanding from the client was as
you come through that access door, it's immediately adjacent to the elevator that would take the materials to the second floor with the manufacturing action. >> I'm sorry, nobody hears you in the back. It was my understanding that that doorway is adjacent to the elevator that
would take the materials to the second floor where the processing takes place which is another reason why we would want to use that point rather than some other access point on the site. >> I I would need uh the expert from Voyant to uh to speak more about that process inside the building. My apologies.
>> If we get to that point, I I have a representative. I I don't know how important that will or won't be. And just a very minor question. So the 8 inch thick structural slabs, those were there already. That's part of the impervious coverage. Can you just go show me where they were again? Is it right where those black boxes were
going? >> They're they're right where these units. So you can see these units here. >> Can you go to the other picture though? The I'm sorry. The uh that one. Yeah, >> right where those boxes are. >> They're there right now. They've been there for how long? 10 years. >> Predates me. I don't know how long. Okay. >> We we core drilled to verify their
depth. So we know for a fact that they're 8 inches thick. >> Okay. And that's part of the whole safety issue with these buildings being on 8 inch thick tab uh slab. Okay. >> All right. So that's that's it for my questions. Any Lori, any questions? >> No. >> No. John,
>> you want Mike? You know, one question just kind of and actually kind of circles back to Jean's question referring to the January 29th letter we have from uh Homeell fire official David Olsen. uh basically
basically supporting um you know implementing these lockers. Uh question I have is did he or any did he or anyone else um ever suggest or recommend that these lockers be in a different location?
>> The only information we would have is exactly what's contained in the letter. I I I can't tell you what may or may not have been on his mind, but um he he has reviewed the proposed locations. Never because I I heard you say that and I
heard you explain why the location you're proposing makes the most makes the most sense for, you know, functionality. But I'm just curious if a fire official or anyone that you consulted ever suggested or recommended that it be that they be in a different location for safety reasons. I don't
want to speak for for your fire official. Um, but I can only look to his letter in which there is no reference to changing the location. I think I if I were right and if in fact that's where the elevator is to take the materials up, that would be from the fire
marshall's perspective that would be the most logical location because the greater risk would be putting it on a forklift and going all the way around the building to another entrance only to have to bring it all the way back to where the elevator is. I don't I can't tell you that he wouldn't recommend
that, but I can tell you it doesn't make sense to me. Also, didn't wasn't the fire official is the one who recommended the Ballards, right? >> Yes. >> Yeah. So, so, so the fire official, you know, they get every application as soon as it comes in and if that they had a comment there, you would have gotten that comment at the same time they got
the Ballard's comment. So, yeah. >> Not that I'm testifying for you guys, but I was on the board back then when we placed it. And everything is the same way and it's always been that way. And it's been all these things that you're saying we talked about years ago when we approved the last one. So just so the
board knows it's best place. >> Okay. All right. Mr. Adler, thank you for your testimony. >> Thank you. >> Uh Mr. Gail, do you have another witness that you'd like to bring forward? >> Oh, I'm sorry. Oh, and and before we have your next witness, Craig, Mr.
>> Just two two minor questions for you. Um, first of all, just to just to be clear, uh, I understand where the access to the building is. Just to the left is the a truck access, I guess, a a driveway down the grade. >> That's correct. That's right along here.
>> Cursor. >> And then uh the township ordinance that when it talks about screening talks about screening from any parking areas or adjacent properties. So, it looks like there's a fence uh in the front there between that and the pro in the um
parking up up page, I guess. >> Yes. So, you can see the fence along here and then there's the hedge that also screens it. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> All right. That's it. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Durman. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Adler. >> U Mr. Chairman, is it appropriate for the public to now ask questions?
>> Well, I thought we were going to have one more witness and then we're gonna be interchangeable questions. Don't leave, Mr. Adler. >> Yep. >> Okay. >> You swear to tell the truth, nothing about the truth. I'll help you out.
>> Yes. Tell your name for the record. >> Anthony Michael Worilli. O R D as in David. I L E. Mr. Adilli, you're a licensed engineer in the state of New Jersey. I am a
licensed professional engineer in the states of Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, and South Carolina. With me is our licensed engineer for our office in New Jersey. She is in a licensed engineer in New Jersey, fire protection
engineer. >> And for what firm are you currently employed? >> It's Baker Engineering and Risk Consultants. It's term baker risk. >> And does that company have a specialty? >> Yes. >> Fire that be >> fire protection engineering, fire code
consulting, explosion research and prevention, process safety management, combustible dust hazard analysis. Have you had the opportunity to re review the applicant's proposal this evening, specifically relating to the
storage lockers together with the letter that was issued by the fire official on January 29th? >> So, we're just going to make sure the board has no questions and and accept his credentials. >> I I have one. So, are you qualified in all those areas you just mentioned? You
you said your firm does it, but are you the one that's >> I do fire. I've been in this field for 50 years. So, what is your expertise? >> Fire protection engineering, fire code consulting. I've done process safety management. I've done dust hazard analysis on explosion prevention.
>> I just want to make sure you're the one that has those credentials, not the company. >> Thank you, Demetri. Any other comments or questions from the board? Do we all accept his credentials? >> Okay, Marty. I think we're good. Marty. >> All right. Mr. Ordilly, please go ahead.
>> I am aware of the uh fire officials letter. We reviewed that and we've reviewed the submitt from Voyant. We have also provided Voyant with fire code consulting and fire protection engineing work since 19
21 under the name of Voyant and even prior when they were cosmetic essence. So I've been in the facility for a couple times now. Can you give the board the benefit of uh your review of these storage lockers uh
in conjunction with the requirements that were set forth in the fire officials letter? Yeah, these lockers these lockers are actually termed hazardous material storage lockers. They've been in NFPA30,
which is the flammable and combustible liquid code, which is referenced in the state of New Jersey since the 1990 edition of NFPA30. Uh there's a whole chapter on the requirements for these lockers as far as
how they're to be built, how they're being maintained, and where they're to be located. And where we're located them meets those requirements. How they're built. They are factory mutual approved 4hour fire rated lockers. They have an
explosion uh they have a excuse me a dry chemical suppression system in the locker. Um and other than that they have spill containment at the bottom that will hold well over one containers worth of uh
leakage. In your opinion, do they meet all the qualifications and requirements as set forth in the fire prevention bureau report dated January 29th? >> Yes, we we agree with the points he made. They actually were justification
for having those lockers. Is there anything in your opinion that would uh create a safety hazard factor as a result of including these as part of the storage materials for buoyant?
>> No, these lockers are widely used to handle just in this in this case where you have excess storage and you want to protect it and not just have it out in the open. The locker provides a 4hour fire rating and uh it's lockable the
gate so it's secured outside. >> That's all that I have of this witness. >> Okay. >> Questions. >> Thank you. I'll open up to the board then for any questions. Francine. >> Oh, I'm just looking over at Lori. >> Jean.
>> Uh, no. I can't think of anything. >> Mr. John, >> no. >> So, just to re reiterate, so there was four hours. So, a fire can go on for 4 hours and and the contents would be safe. It could drop one bottle of liquid, flammable liquid, and be okay
with the drainage. It won't seep out of the the facility. And >> it'll hold 710 uh gallons in the containment area, which is the lower level of the locker. uh the largest container if you we put
totes in there the totes will be 264 gallons. So >> So in your professional opinion in your experience there is no danger to Homeell by having these two storage lockers flam with flammable hazardous materials inside? >> No sir.
>> Okay. Um at this point I'd like to thank you for your testimony. Um >> Mr. Gale. Uh are you if if not I'm going to open up to the public if you have anything more to add at this point. >> No I I have a representative for foyant
here. If the board have questions I didn't intend to present him as a witness because his expertise would simply be limited to the manner in which they manufacture which really doesn't go to the variances that we're requesting this evening. >> Okay. >> But he's here. >> Marty, do you see any reason to have
that testimony? Okay. So, I mean, possibly if the public has any comments, we we may invite him to speak or answer some questions if that's >> that's why I'm offering necessary. >> All right. So, at this point, I'm going to Why don't you remain seated in case there are some questions for you because
I think you're probably the one you're going to get more questions for. Um, so, uh, if is there anyone in the public if you'd like to raise your hand to come up to the microphone and just state your name and your address and then you can ask any questions of our two, uh,
persons of testimony. >> All right, then in that being said, we will close public comment >> for questions. >> No public comment. Uh you can either do that now or when we're done. >> Okay. When there unless you have you're finished at this point, right?
>> Yes, sir. >> Okay. >> So, I would I didn't know if you open. >> Okay. So, yeah. Questions or comments from the public? Has anyone just raise your hand if you wanted to come up to the microphone? Okay. Sure. Come on up. Just state your microphone right here. Just speak clearly into the microphone.
State your first and last name. >> And we have to swear you in for you. Swear to tell the truth. choose to help you guide. >> Spell your name. >> Slowly state your name and your address. >> Marian Sanderki. >> You want me to spell it, >> please?
>> M A R I A N. Last name is S an D O M I E R S K I. And I live at 99 I Court I Court in the village grant. >> Okay. So about how close are you to this facility?
>> Um I'm pretty far away but some of our You're going to have to be >> um some of the residents received letters saying they were putting two storage lockers. We weren't told that they're going to expand on how much more hazardous waste that's
going to be put there, which is is it going to take the value away from our houses? Does it impact us at all like that? Um I would have known that unless I came to this meeting tonight. So, I really think that it should have been more known to our community, especially
even Dearborn Farms is next door to you guys. Um, that we should have known a little bit more about what was going on and not just we're putting up two stories. >> Well, we haven't approved anything yet. We're we're that's why we're having you for public comment and any questions.
Uh, Mr. Gail, do you want to have anyone respond to her comments? >> I think that the uh the notice that we sent uh was adequate in that it it identified the D2 variance uh because of the storage of hazardous materials. I
acknowledge that we didn't give the number of gallons, but we certainly identified the intended use and that the use included flammable materials. >> I did not get a letter where I live. Um I live towards the end of the development. >> I can I can help, ma'am. Only if you're
within 200 feet, you get a letter. So that's the law. They they have to comply with the law. That's all they do. So And there's only so much detail they can put in. >> So we won't breathe anything. >> Well, they have to comply with the law. That's all I can say. And they >> Yeah, I understand that. Okay. >> Public which is why it's, you know,
>> right? I wouldn't have known about it until I went to one of our meetings and it was discussed there. So >> I think Mr. Ordilly has a response or you wanted to reply to your your your concern. It sounds like her concern is more procedural because the testimony that's been put on tonight has been that
it's safe and that the fire official agrees that it's safe and you but your your comment is that you didn't know and so what we're just trying to explain is that you know that there's only a certain limited amount of people to >> I'm sorry about that. No, no, no, no, that's okay. I'm just I'm just the planner. I'm not for the applicant. I
work for the board. So, um you know this the law is that they have to send a notice to any address within 200 feet of the property. So that's why some people, this is a huge property, so that's why some people in Village Grand and others didn't. But all they have to say in that notice is what their application is for and that they're going to be here for a
public hearing on this date because, you know, the things that were presented here tonight, the board didn't know that until it was presented here tonight. So that's why, you know, it it basically every like, you know, I know it's like it's kind of can be a little not scary, but you know, you get a letter in the mail, you don't know what it is, but but
that's but but the thing is is that that this is exactly how the process is supposed to work. um you get the letter, there's a hearing and now you can also watch them on YouTube or or Facebook as well. So you don't have to come. But you know that's the idea is that you you let we let you know or the applicant lets
you know that the board's going to be making an action. The applicant presents its case in public. You have an opportunity to listen then the board makes their decision because like I said, you know, the board didn't know most of these details until tonight as well. So that's how it works. >> But I I do think Mr. Ordilly had wanted to reply to you. So I'll let Mr.
I can settle your your fears in that what Voyant does is use alcohol ethanol. That's the same. >> What happened? >> Reporting is not going to pick it up. It's close. Thank you. >> It's it's the same alcohol that is used
in distilled spirits. It's if you remember the days of COVID, it's the same alcohol that's used in the hand sanitizers. They use it to make perfumes. That's what's in that >> and that's what will be in the totes and the drums that will be stored in that
container in those lockers. >> So really what we want to know as residents thank you very >> well thank you for your comment. Thank you. >> Um any other comments from or questions from the public? >> That being said I don't see anyone. We're going to close com public comment
and questions and uh I'm going to give the board one final uh chance to make a comment or uh a question final questions before we vote on this. >> Anyone? >> All right. Do you want to move forward with a motion to >> I'd like to make a motion uh that we
approve. >> Do we have a second for that motion? >> I'll second the motion that we approve this. >> Okay. Ireina, could we do a roll call? >> Uh Mr. Burkel? >> Yes. >> Miss Campus? >> Yes. Miss Gerard, >> yes. >> Mr. Luchiani, >> yes. >> Mr. Gian Paulo,
>> yes. >> Mr. Oran Pulas and Mr. Arnon, >> yes. >> Motion passed. Thank you. >> Thank you for the vote. >> Thank you for your time >> and your testimony. >> All right, moving on. The second item on agenda. Francine, would you please read
this out for us? Uh number two, Maria Cody's 33 Bayberry Drive, Homeell, New Jersey, RTH zone. The applicant is requesting a variance for the installation of a rear pa patio around the pool located approximately 1
ft off the property line and increasing lot coverage by exceeding 30%. >> Okay. Um, thank you, Francine. Um, so I'm going to open this up to the plan, uh, Miss Keller and Mr. Herman to kind of give us
a brief summary before we open testimony to the applicant. Uh, Mr. Keller, do you want to kind of introduce what we're before us today? >> Sure. Let me just >> unless Mr. Herman, you'd like to go first. Is >> I I can just do it quickly. So, we're here.
>> Are you sure we can? Yes, I got it. The applicant is here tonight seeking um bulky variance relief. They have already they've constructed um a bunch of um you know amenities in their yard including a pool with a patio um paper walkways, a
pergola, things like that. Um and there is their lot coverage is 42.7% where 30% is the maximum permitted. Um, and that 42.7% does include the township's um, permitted reduction for pavers because when pavers are not used
as a driveway, you're allowed to take 50% of that because of the the drainage factor, I guess. Um, but so that there is there's that 42.7% impervious where 30% is permitted. And in addition, the pool pa patio, which is considered part of the pool, is located about a foot
from the rear yard property line where 10 feet is required. Um, so those are that's the variance relief. Um I will um you know well they can put testimony on the record as to you know this C2 they have to show that the benefits outweigh the detriments. They have to show that this will not create does not create
negative um impact to the public good does not um substantially impair the zone planner zoning ordinance. Um, and so in terms of, you know, what those negative impacts could look like, I will turn to Craig and, you know, because we'll let hear the testimony, but just my concerns are just the amount of
impervious coverage, the potential for drainage issues, which I don't know if there are any. We'll hear about that. Um, because it's so close to the property line, um, and you know, things of that nature. >> Thank you, Miss Keller. >> Mr. Herman. Oh, go ahead. >> Has this already been built?
>> So, uh, thank you. Um nothing more to add to what um Miss Keller said other than the fact she mentioned drainage and there could be a substantial issue with drainage which um isn't something that can be corrected. We would just have to figure out with an engineer what kind of
improvements that would need to be done to accommodate any drainage uh issues that are will occur or are occurring out there. Oh, I I would also note just one thing that I this is in my letter, but I think we just want to get a a we want to make sure that we have the correct percentage of everything that's on the
lot because, you know, the pergola from what I could see, I'm not sure if the pergola is is impervious, stuff like that. We just want to make sure that we have an accurate understanding of what's impervious on the site. >> Okay. Thank you, Miss Keller. Uh >> question, >> excuse me, >> for Kate. You go ahead,
>> Kate. Um, you didn't mention anything about that it was all existing and >> yes, I I I think I did, but >> No, no, but I mean, what was the They must have had an application for something. Did they have an application for the pool and not the pavers? Because according to the survey map, the pavers
are all around the pool and walkways. So, what was the permit that they originally had for? Is it Do you have any information on that? >> I am not sure. Um, do we have the do we have the denial? >> I have the denial.
>> I sent us an email, >> but they just talk about required permits. >> Board members should have as a print out >> permits they had. >> Yeah, the the I'll read it out. The total lock coverage is shown on the asbuilt survey prepared by David John J. Von Steamberg of Morgan Engineering and
surveying dated um June 20 through June 30, 2025 is 42.7% which exceeds the maximum permitted lock coverage of 30%. Then the second one was for um there is there is an active violation
on the property for the installation of pavers without the required permits which has resulted in exceeding the maximum permitted lot coverage of 30% and encroaching into the required 10-ft rear yard setback which is what Kate
mentioned earlier. No permits will be issued until this violation has been fully abated. >> Is that correct? Is there anything I'm leaving out there, Kate? >> No, that that's correct. Okay. Um it sounds like to me from my my read of that is that, you know, someone someone may have complained.
>> Yeah, but I I'm confused that if they put a pool in and that had permits, >> they may have already had the pool might have already been there. Um we we can have testimony on that. >> Okay. I guess we'll have to find out from the applicant. >> And I want to make sure I have your name I pronounce your name correctly, sir. Uh Mr. Quitis is it?
>> Oh, that's my wife. That's my husband. >> Okay. So, Mrs. Mrs. Quitis. So, you're going to be providing the testimony. >> Yeah. Both of us. >> Okay. In the same last name, Quitus. >> No. Uh, that's the last name. >> Okay. So, Marty, why don't you swear them both in? >> Do you have to get up? >> Both. Well, no. Just raise your hand. Do
you both swear to tell the truth? Nothing but the truth. So, I help you God. >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. So, for the record, you both can swear, but I need you to both spell your full name for the record. >> Ma'am, do you want to go first? >> Yes. Um, Maria. M A R I Y A. Last name K O T YS.
>> Okay. And sir, >> uh, Alexander. A L E X A N D E R. And last name is R U K A S O V. Like Victor. >> I'm sorry. Say that one more time. R U K. >> K A >> S O V.
>> Okay. Thank you. >> And this has no bearing on the application, but did you say you're are you married or Okay. Just >> I want to make sure my records. >> All right. So, Mrs. Quitis, you're going to lead the application. Do you want to do you want to start providing your testimony and explain kind of >> asking about the notice of conflicts?
>> Oh, okay. Yeah. Um, do you have any conflicts with anyone on this board? Do you see anyone here that you may know as a friend or family member on the board >> and board members? Do you have any conflicts with the applicant? >> Okay. So, Marty, I think we're clear with that. >> Notice Escro is okay. >> That's correct.
>> Okay. Escrow is fine. Uh, so Mrs. quit us if you want to kind of just give us um background some information. We don't know anything. So, we'd like to, you know, whatever Kate and Mr. Herman and Mrs. Keller explained to us, that's what we've heard tonight. So, we'd like to hear your side of the um of, you know,
of your application. Well, uh, basically we did we did build a per we did build a pool uh recently uh like like slightly like over a year ago and uh unfortunately we you know we were cool with you know but I knew we we knew that
we need a permit for the pool but we were clue was about getting a permit for the tiles that there's x amount of uh percentage tiles because we moved in here from Stan Island and uh you know on Stan Island No, it was is you know we
were cool pretty much they never require on Stan Island you you know like all my friends everybody legally covered the whole backyard from A to Z. >> Now when you say tiles are those paver pavers? >> Yes it's uh 18 I believe 18 by 18 size.
Uh I'm either 18 by 18 or 24 x 24. Don't quote me. >> Okay. So there there's sand in between. >> Yes there sand in between. >> Okay. So, you did get a building permit for the pool. Yes. Okay. So, we don't have that in our because because that would have been before everything, but
and we can we can you know we we this the township would have a record of that. So, it sounds like they just got a permit just for the pool and that was approved. >> Yeah. But if a pool company only because I just went through all this is submitting a plan for a pool, they usually have some sort of pavers. So,
did you have some initial pavers and you added to what it was >> after the fact? Uh well, when we moved in in the house, there was a concrete uh uh concrete or uh asphalt slab in the back of the house. We demo that slab and
there was nothing, you know, besides that there was nothing there. >> So, is that after the pool or before the pool? >> No, wait. We demoed the the slab that was originally when the building I'm assuming was built. Uh we demoed this. Well, the the pool pool company uh it's
uh from Stan Island. uh pool doctor. They when they when they they did all the permits, they did everything for us. >> So was a I mean you don't have to have a have a patio around it. You can just say you're having putting in a pool.
>> But if it meets the setback, it meets the setback. So yeah. >> And I'm just trying again a lot of questions just because I'm trying to understand this. So when you said asphalt, so like a black top like patio that you put like lawn furniture on top of or like >> I'm assuming again that's when the house
or was originally built that whatever the builder uh had uh like for everybody in the whole community. Uh that's what's there that what was there when then the pool company came they demoed that and
uh they build a pool uh you know like uh in on the backyard >> just by itself and to to Mitri's point just the pool only. No pavers at all. >> Well they had what you call it pavers uh just you know like a just right around
the like uh not pavers it's >> an apron >> the coping the pole cool coping. Yeah. In other words, you walked from grass into the pool or was there some sort of cement around the pool? >> Well, wait. The pool company just build
the the pool and the surrounding like uh coping stones uh around it. Then uh I put in the tiles afterwards because there was nothing, you know, like uh because uh like we like one of the
issues we had is is that uh it was always uh one of the reason we put the tiles on because uh it was always after the rain it was the whole backyard. It was you can sink into the backyard because uh like the the coder court is about two maybe two and a half feet
higher than uh our side of the house and uh like all the water from from rain will come in and we pretty much had a natural pool uh like for like a two three days uh you know so this way the you know when you when I put the tiles
it was actually usable because the pool company they came in they did this and goodbye. I mean they did their job but then all the water will coming down because on the angle and it's it's basically physics if one land is higher than the other the water will go to a
low lower you know portion of of the length. >> Did you also do the walkways on both sides of your house at the same time you did the back deck? >> Correct. >> So you did all the tile work as you're calling it at the same time after the pool was in? >> Yes. Right after the pool. Yes. And you
didn't get any permits for any of that work? >> No. Uh I didn't know. You see, like like I said, >> I got it. >> Do you have Oh, Lori, did you >> you said you put the tiles in because of the water? Correct. >> That's corre correct. >> Weren't you wondering when you put the tiles in and your problem went away
where the water was going to h go to? >> We wake uh we actually build the drain there. There there there is a drain. We also have uh what you call when uh we started to dig. We have a uh what you
call a well dry well they had to build with the pool company also file for a per well because the minute they start digging uh they couldn't even like dig more than 5t. >> Do you have pictures color pictures of your property? Did you take any
pictures? >> Well, I'd like if they >> and it would be submitted as part of the record. Imagine, Marty, is that correct? >> Yeah. >> No. Yeah. Unfortunately, my wife took it, but the use was because of the snow. >> Okay. Okay. So, you don't have anything from the spring or the summer time?
>> Uh, no. We This This is like the first thing we like we never done this before. >> Yeah. >> And uh like uh everything for us it's like uh you know. >> What about the pergola? Was that also built by you after the pool went in?
>> Uh yes. Uh the pergola. Yes. But the the the pergo as uh uh uh contacted the engineers architect because the roof is retractable. There's uh you just push a button and there's no roof. >> But did you get a permit for that? >> Yes. >> You got a permit for the Pargo? >> Yes.
>> And when was that approximately? >> Uh whoa. Uh hold on. >> I I forgot my glasses. at uh >> November 202 >> uh november 2024. >> Okay. So, there's a retractable awning
that comes off the pergola. >> Yes. It's uh wait, you push a button and the whole roof retracts. >> So, I think one of the comments is that um there was no permit given for the electric that is running out to the pergola. >> We we got the permits for electric afterwards, too. We we we the we got
fined and we paid the fine and we got the electrician came in and uh they it's licensed now. >> Okay. Mr. Herman, >> Mr. Herman or Mrs. Keller, do do you have any comment on on the >> So, so the pergola is over grass. >> Uh yeah. Uh well, it's uh not grass. Uh
I removed the grass. I put the gravel. >> Okay. Is that impervious? >> Gravel. Can I ask you? Um, you talk about not knowing. So, did you like ask for a pool to be put in and the pool guy told you you need a permit? When you
went to get the pergola, the pergola guy told you needed a permit. I'm trying to understand why you got a permit for certain things and not others. Well, we could uh when I went uh when I went uh for the pool, uh the pool
company says uh we're going to take care of everything. That's what what they did. Same thing with uh I also have a solar panels. I called up Tesla and they took care of everything. Uh was their permit. There is no permit. They came in and they you know they they was there
was not like you know I have to go in and go get it. >> Okay. But then you did the pavers yourself or did you somebody No. Uh the pavers uh well I I I worked I got people worked you know like helping me out >> and nobody mentioned to you you might
need a permit for these. >> No never crossed my mind. That that's why we're here. That's why like you know I got a fin. I paid the fine and uh applied. >> Okay. So what initiated us to now know that you did this without a permit? Did
were you going to do something else to your property and somebody came and reviewed it and said you need a permit? >> Uh, no. It's uh >> Well, I think there's a couple issues. Um, it just the one is the being one foot away from I read these before. I'm just going to
read them out one more time just for the board because I think it's important to understand the second page here. Um, there is an active violation on the property for the installation of pavers without the required permit. So that's one. Francine, >> excuse me. >> The um the there's an act of violation
on the property for the installation of the pavers without the required permits. That's one which has resulted is the second part of this which has resulted in exceeding the maximum permitted lot coverage of 30%. It's actually 47
42.7 42.7. So it's 12.7% over what the home del code is. And then the other problem is it's encroaching into the required 10- foot rear yard setback. It's only one foot away from the neighbor's property. So there sounds to me like there's three violations going
on here. Mr. Herman and Mr. G. Is that correct? Three violations that we need to address here tonight issues. >> Yeah. Essentially. Yeah. >> All right. Um you'll vote on the two variances. If you were to grant them, that would eliminate
the violation, quote unquote, but they may still have to pay a fine for that. We don't >> Yeah, we don't Yeah, we don't we don't deal with that. They any if you if you've been fined, you know, sometimes there's like a stay, but that's outside of this court's process. Um >> but yeah, the part and also part of it is that, you know, they when they're
trying to resolve it, they come to the board. >> Okay. Um, but yeah, the I I I the zoning denials kind of set a little bit of that story, but what we're hear is the violations from the zoning ordinance. So, you know, I understand, you know, I was curious too about, you know, how
this happened, when it happened, but what really matters here, what they're here for tonight is what they're asking for. Um, one thing that I will note is that, >> you know, unlike some other things that we get before this board where someone might have an addition or something like
that, these are really these are pavers. You know, they're considered 50% impervious, but they're not like a structure. Um, you know, they're I understand the applicant wants to do what he wants to do with his property. He has the right to have a pool. has the right to, you know, enjoy his property. But I think that, you know, it would be
within the board's purview potentially to to request see if some see if, you know, maybe meet somewhere with with if the applicant was willing to remove portions. I I ask the applicant if he was willing to remove portions of the papers, >> which is about 12.7% of the of the
impervious coverage. >> That would that would make it compliant. And depending on where those were were removed from, you may think you're still going to have an issue with the pool patio setback um that you know because of just just the size of the property and the location, but it may be able to
mitigate that. >> And can you show me where the pool this setback should be? Where where's the setback? Where's the pool? Pool patio is where? Can you point that out on the picture for us? Well, this is the pool and uh the setback is uh goes uh from
from this point all the way down. >> So, you built that right up into the edge of the property. >> Yes. Because like I mentioned before, uh the the property on the other side is uh like about 2 ft higher than mine and uh the water was coming there like there's no tomorrow.
>> So, hypothetically, that that is one potential that those pavers are removed from the backside of that pool there. I mean, is this something you would have to suggest if if you're going to try to am ameliate the um the the violation? I mean, have
you thought about what you could do? >> Uh well, wake up. You see, the the goal of this is so the water is not going to come in. It's a rain water, but it's coming so much when you wake up. When there was grass or even gravel, you step in and your foot starts sinking. So,
it's basically my backyard is useless. uh like a couple of days until the water is settled. >> Mr. Herman, do dry wells is that is that part of the whole setback? Like if he put dry wells back there where the pavers are between the pool and his neighbor's property trying to you know
again alleviate I said emilarate before alleviate um the water drainage issue um with I guess it's coming back he's saying it's 2t higher so it's coming into his property. So, if we were to say hypothetically install two or three
drywall uh uh you know rainwater capture right there at the back, would that help a little bit? Would that be a problem with the the one yard the 10 yard setback? >> So, there it's actually two separate things. Uh the setback is zoning requirement ordinance. It's just
measurements. You know, something needs to be so far from the property line as far as you know, storm water management and drainage. Um, grass will soak up water, pavers, impervious surfaces don't. It runs off. So, you need to
catch it and put it into probably a drywall in this situation. So, yes, to answer your question, you know, collecting and putting it in drywall is going to help, but that doesn't necessarily um that's not
related directly to the setback issue or that, >> but would it be in violation of the setback? So you could put drywall in that 10 foot area. >> Yes. >> Yeah. The drywall is not considered an accessory structure. >> Okay. >> Whereas the pavers are a problem.
>> Pavers are considered to be part of the >> Exactly. So we're we're again we're commenting up here. You're going to hear a lot of comments because we have to figure out a resolution because I'm sure the public has some comments >> and I appreciate very much. I just because I do have a drywall one drywall there. >> You may need a couple more. >> I have I have a couple of questions or
comments. Uh, number one, I'd like it doesn't have elevations here. So, how does your property slope? Does it start higher in the front and go lower in the back or in the back goes towards the front? >> How does it feel to like Dakota Court is the what?
>> Dakota Court is the is the street on the other side of the backyard. >> Yeah. And uh it's it's it's it goes uh it's way higher than uh uh Bayberry Drive portion of uh where I live. And the water goes from there all the way
down. >> So you're saying from the backyard towards the front yard, it goes lower towards the front. >> Correct. >> Okay. So what about the sideyards? Does your does the sideyards, you know, lot 21 and 23 on both sides? Are they lower or higher than you? They
>> I'm uh I did not visit those. I'm assuming it's the same, but I cannot uh put hand on my heart and say yes, it is because I did not visit those properties. >> Okay. So, my I have a couple of concerns. One, I don't know, and unless they happen to be out there, how the
water would affect cuz you have a lot of pavement here, a lot of tiles, takes up your whole yard almost. And I understand your concerns about your water. So, I'm concerned about all of that. that water now has nowhere to go because it's all pavers and one dry well is definitely
not going to handle all that area. So the only way me personally and and that's where the engineer comes in, I see you would have to probably take away roughly 8 feet or 6 feet of the back of the patio area completely out and run a
rain garden all along that whole back of your property. So the water would go there and collect in the rain garden. >> That wouldn't work because that's higher. Um but I mean it >> No, but you would go bel you would go down below the pa height, >> right? Well, I I think I think that you know there's there's different options.
>> But that's the only place you could put a rain garden. Well, I think the fir I dee I agree that there needs to be some I think the first step here which I don't know if the applicants directly answered it is if the applicant is willing to try to um you know come closer into compliance
with the ordinance by removing some of the pavers because the whatever type of of storm water is to mitigate it is dependent on how many how much coverage there is. Um, and you know, it's a little more detailed than that, but you
know, if there's if there's a portion of this that you think you can live without, that would take your coverage down. And then, you know, maybe you only need two dry wells instead of three or four. Um, because, you know, the basically it's it's it's the the regulation is there for a reason. You
know, it's a 30% imperous coverage. And, you know, these are these are, you know, modestly sized lots for Homeell, but this is a portion of the township where, you know, there is a lot of water around. there's water drainage and there there's the impervious coverage limit was chosen for a reason. Um and you know
and you're seeing that or you're already seeing that with your with your drainage. So I think you know the first question and you know is is there a way to mitigate the variance variances by either pulling it either removing portion of the pavers or by at least
setting it back a little further from the line. >> Yeah. Mr. Rukov Rukus. Yes. Okay. So yeah, you're you're here before us asking for a waiver of the variances. >> Yes, sir. >> So explain to us the board why you have a hardship with your property and why
you're requesting a a variance relief from this board >> for these two different what violations of the zoning ordinance of Homedale. >> Well, uh like I mentioned before, uh because of the rainwater uh way. Uh well, yes, I put in the tiles. Yes, I
did not ask permission and I'm at fault with that. Um but uh now like my back backyard and pool is pretty much usable. The we got uh otherwise it's the water will be all over the place. You'll be
going into the pool be now the pool will be dirty and uh pretty much you can't even walk around the pool because like I mentioned before if I remove those tiles it will wake and uh we'll be sinking. Everybody who will be walking will be
sinking. Uh the feet will be sinking. That's >> So have you thought about what you could do to mitigate this as Mrs. Keller just mentioned because I believe you have you the some public comments here that are I think you're impacting your neighbor's property since the water is not going on
your property. It may be going on other neighbors properties that wasn't originally there. So, have you thought about how you can mitigate this 42.7% over is 12.7% over the the code and also the the backyard setback like have you given any thought to that?
>> Uh well, I can the only I can tell you the the the water that's wake that was supposed to go on around the pool now on my side on my sideyard. It's uh wake up. There's a after the rain there's a a huge puddle on my sideyard. Uh where
wake uh by the gates. >> Which side? >> Uh wake on this side. >> Which side? >> Right here. The the whole thing is flooded after the rain. Uh, have you thought of uh instead of
having all those pavers in the back, you put some dry wells in the back to take care of the drainage that the water that's flooding in from your neighbor's property uh coming down. Uh that would allow you
to uh have less impervious coverage and also to take care of your problem with the flooding. uh and also have more of a setback uh to be to meet the setback requirements.
>> I think you may have to go back and and do a little bit more research on what the problems are in your property right now, but I'd like to open it up to the public because I think that some members of the public have come here. So, I'd like to hear from the public just uh any any questions they may have or comments
and then I think it you may it may help you to hire a professional to kind of give you some ideas because you've heard from the board about rainwater gardens and dry wells that may mitigate some of this runoff into other properties. So, you know, we you also need somebody to
kind of calculate for you how many pavers need to be removed to get within, you know, maybe it's maybe we could there's a possibility that the v the board may vote on 32% or 33% over the the 30%. As as Mrs. Keller said, there's an issue with flooding on this side of
town. And you know, I I think some kind of middle ground here and hiring somebody um you know, that that an engineer that could give you some advice on rainwater gardens, dry wells, and how much of the pavers you may need to move,
relocate, or just pull up in total. Um, so that's where I'm at right now, but I Marty, if it's okay, I'd like to open up to the public to see if there's any comment from the public right now, and then we'll go back to you for and then we'll figure something out after after the public has spoken. >> Thank you. >> You're welcome. Uh, so yes, ma'am,
please come up. >> Ask her number, which side is not 21 or 23. >> So please, >> question or comment. >> Uh, do you have a question or a comment? >> Or both. >> We have to swear you in for a comment. So >> definitely comment. >> Let's swear you in. You swear to tell the truth. nothing but the truth. So, I
hope you got it. >> I do. >> Yeah. Just again, state and spell your name for the record. >> Janice Palé. J an i pal. P A L M E. And I'm at six Dakota Court. >> And um so we're looking at the property. Are you to the right or the left of this property? >> I'm actually behind.
>> You're behind it. Okay. >> I'm behind. >> Literally behind the property. >> Literally. So my >> So you're the higher piece of property he's referring to. >> Exactly. And I can tell you right now it is not two feet higher. um because I'm experiencing drainage issues and unless water starts running uphill, I don't I
don't uh agree with that. So, I think the recommendation about getting a survey is probably a um a good idea, but and I will say um so my my just so you know, my property is behind this property and my backyard property line runs along the entire length of their
property line. So, just to you know, it's just not a piece, it's the entire thing. So, I just wanted you to understand that. So, here's um my comment, and forgive me, I did actually write a couple I I wrote a couple um comments as well, and I wrote some notes here based on his testimony. So, um here
we go. Uh this homeowner has a history of construction and property additions without applications or permits with with disregard to the rules put in place by the town to protect the residents and land. In fact, seven were issued in June 2025 alone. Um this variance should not
be granted Um the reasons for this, the overage on the lot coverage at 42.7% is so much higher than the 30%. And I know there's so many people in um my neighborhood that have before they started construction, they made sure
that they were at the 30%. Um so there was no variances needed. Um so and just so you know, this um that lot coverage, it has affected my property negatively. Um you can see I have Jana's issues along um a portion of
the of my backyard up against there. And what's happening is yes, he does have some water runoff. The water is running off and there's a masonry wall which I guess has some small stones in it. And those small stones are now running under the like the fences and all the way down to the grass. So now I have a whole line
of stones all along the back and it's killed all my grass that's been up against my fence. So, um, and it's getting worse and worse as I guess each time it rains or, um, the pool's been in for a couple years, but I'm noticing, um, I mow the lawn myself, so I actually look at it every time I go by when I'm
mowing. Um, also, um, in June 2025, they were found in violation of, um, what was already stated about the installation of the rear paver patios. They are one foot off of my property line. And I understand, and we all understand, that it should be
10 feet. Nine feet is a big difference. And um I think that's part of the I'm I'm sure that's part of the reason that my drainage is being affected. I mean, if that masonry wall is right up against my fence and those rocks are coming in, that's pretty obvious, I think. So, I'm hoping and expect that mod all the
modification would need to be made to this property to make that 10 ft um a reality. Um ideally, grass, but of course, I understand there's pavers as well as as an option. Um, what I wanted to say was, um, the
pergola that was mentioned when it was first put in, it was 1 foot from my property line. I don't know what happened. I don't know if it was um from complaints from us or the town noticed it during inspection and then it was moved to 10 ft off the property line, but when I pulled the um the permits and
the applications that are on the SDP portal, it um it said that the pergola the application was for it to be put at the rear of the structure, which >> so closer to the house, >> which it was never placed at the rear of the structure. Yes. Right up against the
house. That's what I saw online. And of course, you guys can check that. you guys are more of the experts to see that. And as far as I can tell, um, because I do have a view of the property from my backyard, that pergola is not on small stones. It's on the 18 by8 pavers
that are along the entire property. Um, and you know, you guys were talking about potential modifications. There's no grass in that backyard. Wherever there's green, it's astroturf. I don't know how um what you if that's like a paver where you get 50% or something
from astroturf but you know some uh there's no grass there so that's probably part of the drainage issue and I just want to conclude with with just reminding you all that homeale residents we do abide by township rules and on setbacks and property coverages before work is completed
and you know I feel like if this is approved by the board it's setting a bad precedent um as mentioned by um I I I believe uh this uh young lady over here um we have small properties at Meadowwood Estates. So those when when
you're talking about 10 ft, it's a really big deal for us. So um I I hope that the board just takes all my comments into consideration. So thank you very much. >> No, thank you. >> Great. I have a question for the young lady. >> Yes. >> I'm trying to understand the property heights. Your property is higher or
lower than this the applicant? I am I'm not qualified to answer that. If it's if it's that much higher, I don't understand how his when he's having drainage issues, how that's coming and affecting up by my fence. >> So, the water is coming to you from his property, you're saying?
>> Yes. Yes. And even um you know, we've lived there before um when the other owner was there and even when um that other owner, it was all grass in the backyard with one uh bit of concrete at the rear of the structure. Um, even then there was drainage issues of from that
yard coming into our yard. >> So, where is all this water coming from? Is it coming from another neighbor's house into yours and into his? >> I don't This is all along the property line along our two properties. I um I have no issues um both neighbors on both other sides of me have pools. I have no
issues with water on either either from either of those. >> So, do you do you think where the fence is is a low spot like a little valley or something? So the water's coming to that point. >> It it Yeah, it could be. I mean, it's it's a large it's um you know, maybe
like 10 like 10 feet or so, 10 to 12 feet of, you know, where where the water's collecting and where the stones are coming under. >> So you're saying stones from his property that he put along the fence like underneath the fence so the grass doesn't grow there, I presume, or something, right? That stones are
actually coming over the fence to your property from underneath. >> Yes. Yes, they are. I have some um pictures on my phone I could find of it. >> Oh, we really can't look at pictures on your phone. >> Did you Did I hear a question on yours? >> We're just So the pergola is 10 feet
from your fence. >> I haven't personally measured it, but I'm assuming when it was moved when it was up right up against the fence. I'm assuming it was moved to 10 feet. >> I haven't been back in the process. >> It looks like it's lined up with the pool. The back of the pool. Yeah, it looks like it's back. Yeah.
Um, >> any other questions? >> Okay. Okay. Thank you very much. We appreciate your comments. >> No, thank you. >> 10 feet on both sides. >> I'm going to open up to anyone else in the public who'd like to sir, come on up.
>> Same thing. Just speak directly into the microphone and uh Marty's going to swear you in. >> You just want to tell the truth about the truth to help you got >> I do. >> Again, can you just please spell this, please? Uh, first name Charles, last
name Patre. P E T R E T T I >> and your address. >> Also, uh, one of the owners of the property behind. >> So, your address? Yeah, just for the record, your address. >> 6 Dakota Court. >> Okay, great. Thank you. >> Uh, I do have those photos. >> Okay. Uh, do you want to, Marty, can we
pass those around? >> 01. How many photos? Two. Two. So, it's a package of two photos. And just for the record, you have to when did were they taken and who took them? >> Uh Janice took them >> day before the snow. So no,
>> those are going to be A1 and A2. Is that what it is? >> We'll just do A1 both. >> Oh, 01 because objector. Yes. >> Okay. >> And they were taken within the last couple weeks. >> Yeah, last couple weeks. >> Okay. Excuse.
>> What was your house again? >> Six Dakota court. Oh, are you married together? >> No. >> So, you're over from her? >> That doesn't matter. That doesn't matter. I'm just It's the same house. >> Oh, okay. Just if you could just uh >> co-owners >> was possibly January 26th.
>> I want to know. So, we're not talking about another property. >> No, same exact property. Um, but can you provide uh any any comments or questions? Uh, >> I mean, I can I mean, and just to reiterate, you know, what what Janice said, I think >> January 24th. Thank you. what you said as well. I think that, you know,
everybody's open to reason. I think if there's proper planning and there's a plan in place with an engineer in place, you can look at it with a sensible kind of point of view, but with a solution in mind, I think when you look at those photos and if you see the property, it's
basically it's pretty haphazard and it's planning and it's a little bit of this, it's a little bit of that. It's really, you know, we're the owners of the property behind, so you see it every day. I, you know, people can do whatever they want in their property. It's fine. It's being nice to your neighbors is,
you know, one of the sacred rules you would hope uh to follow. And and the fact of, you know, doing one scope of work one day, thinking someone takes care of it, another scope of work another day thinking someone else takes care of it. I don't buy any of it. Everybody knows what they're doing.
There's rules in place. There's ordinances in place. This is clearly a violation of that. It it should be it should be shown on a plan. licensed engineers, architects, whatever it takes, and present it to the board, present it to the public before any sort
of reconciliation or approval of anything or any variance uh whatsoever in my >> um board members, do we have any questions for this Mr. Pete? >> I'll only add one more thing about the
hardship of the properties and yeah, I mean everything is small like Janice said on that side of town. drainage isn't the best over there. The property was purchased, I think, in 21 maybe when renovation started. So, you know, the hardship is probably the
size of the lot and what you'd like to put on it. Everybody works within the rules and within what you have and trying to do more than what your neighbor has is a bit uh it's a bit unfair. It does set precedent and example for people to follow and it's the wrong set of rules to follow. Thank you.
>> Thank you for your comment. Uh, are there any other members of the public? There's one other gentleman back there. Do you want to say anything? Okay, great. Um, so yeah, we're going to close public comment and questions and um I'm going to open up to the board before I say anything. So, is there
anything that Francine and Lori you want to say before I suggest something? >> Can I just ask a question on ordinances? Do you need permission to put down pavers? If you put down like I understand the boundary issue, they're off the 10 foot. I'm sorry. They're off the 10 foot lot and they're up to the
wall, you know, which is one foot. Say they were within the 10-ft lot. Would they need any permission to put pavers on their property? >> You're supposed to get a permit for any type of walkway, any type of anything that adds impervious coverage.
>> So that's a zoning. So that's a >> that's a zoning permit. >> Zoning is different from building. >> Yeah, I'm talking about zoning >> because we're worried about flood issues and and drainage issues. Courtney Courtourtney does the measurements and determines some of that. >> Okay. So all the pay pavers then technically that they put in because it
was acknowledged they didn't know about permits are on the table because there is no permit for any of them. Correct. >> Yes. And I'm looking at the history online which okay um just to give a brief you know I can give a brief summary here. Um, so the first the pool
was approved in 20 pool permit was approved in 2023, July 2023. It says construction of a 12x32 inground pool with a narrow walkway around the pool located 10 ft from the right property line and 10 ft from the rear property
line. So that was approved. Um, the pool equipment was supposed to be 12 feet from the right property line. Um, a pergola was approved in 2024 on the on the piece of um the the at grade a
concrete patio that the applicant later removed that he testified to towards the beginning of his that was there already. Then they came back later that year and when they removed that that uh concrete pad or whatever that concrete patio to put the pergola 10 ft from the rear
property line and 10 ft from the left side property line. So that appears to be approximately where it is right now. Um and at that time there was a note on the permit that said the pavers have to be removed and a property survey including lot coverage has to be submitted before zoning final approval.
Then since then fence was denied and a shed permit was denied. So basically they did not comply with the conditions of the pergola the second pergola application and that was when Courtney or whomever realized that there was all these papers down there and they
probably did not comply. So that's the two denials that we have from um from um July are technically for the shed and a fence and there are violations that were issued 62425 installation of rear paper patio around
the pool installation of walkways outdoor shower AC condenser unit second shed um the roof structure on the pergola and then installation of a fence. So, >> this portal is extremely helpful. I realize I could. >> So, they got denied approval of the
shed, but a shed was put in anyway. >> It looks like it was. >> Okay. Do you want to address that issue? >> Well, wait. We did remove the the stones, the patio stones. Uh the the the
pergo is there, but uh there's no uh stones uh on the floor. >> Okay. So, so that's what you're saying is that so you did remove the the pavers that that the neighbor just said were under the pergola. Correct. So that's why she thought there were pavers under the pergola and he's saying it's gravel
and you're saying you removed those at some point, but now we're talking about the shed and other things as well. >> At the point that the pergola was approved, what impervious coverage they were still under the 30% I assume? that submitting a survey was a condition of
the approval to >> so we don't know at that point whether they were within the 30% even at that point >> no >> when when did the perlar when did they ask for that information ke >> 1124 >> all right because oh this was done after
>> yeah so that would have been done in in response to that >> to that so the survey was done after okay >> any other comments from the board right Now, >> oh, and you know what, Francine, Francine, what I'll say is that um at the time of the pool approval, pools
don't count towards impervious, but that narrow walkway would have and I can't remember if that would have been Courtney or Zer Lonnie because it's 2023, but whoever was zoning officer at the time would have looked at that um >> that would have been Lonnie. >> Yeah, that walkway. So, >> so at the pool time, we'd say they're
probably within >> and based on just aerials. That would be my guess as well. Okay, >> Demetri, you >> So, I was able to put my glasses on now and I'm looking at the elevations. >> Okay. >> So, the highest point of his of the property is the back left corner where
the parlor is. And as he said, the lowest point is in the front yard. So, all the water is coming from the back towards the front down both sides. It looks like both sides are 54 towards the front of the house and the other one 54.
So, the elevations are definitely lower in the front and the back are a little bit higher. Uh the the patio is at 44 54.73. So, it's a little bit higher than the land in some spots, but the side that's
the highest is the pergola side at 55 high. So, it's almost like six, seven inches higher on that side. So to me, this yard has to be somehow reworked because of the water situation that the that the applicant mentioned. And some
of these pavers have to be removed to try to solve because no there's not that many places to put a drywill or or uh or a rain garden. The only place I see is in the back corner of that right side there. Maybe the water will go there. But even along the side where the wider
walkway is on the right side of the house, that's the area where that's where the water will gather. So that's where something should be over at that point. But that's, you know, we're I'm only observing. I'm not a professional, but you need to have a professional. That's my opinion that you need a
professional person to come there, evaluate your yard, and propose solutions to you, and then come back with solutions to the board. That's my feeling. I don't know how everybody else feels because what you have here is just too many different issues that are going
on and there's not a simple answer. >> Uh my opinion, >> Jean or or Sally, do you have anything further? >> I totally agree with >> I I agree with what he's saying. Uh I don't think he should have put the pavers all the way to the fence. Uh
that's that's clearly against the ordinance. I think that has to be taken out and uh But there has to be some uh dry welds or or something in the back or in the sides
uh to take care of drainage and we definitely should not uh accept any uh any put accept any variances here. >> John uh you concur. >> Concur. >> All right. So m Mr. uh Ruskaval Rukov
>> just call me Alex. Alex, um what I would suggest here is that we don't vote tonight. I I would suggest that you uh ask for an adjournment and carry this forward to a future meeting. I would suggest you work with Mr. Herman to find
a an acceptable engineer to help you with your property to get a proper survey uh that can do calculations and show elevations of where the water runoff is. You've heard a lot of suggestions from the board because we see this a lot with a lot of, you know, again, Homedale, our biggest concern is
drainage, flooding, and water issues for our neighbors, for your own property. Um, you've heard us talk about rain gardens. You know, you can make it very attractive in your property. Rain, it's going to cost you some money to fix this. You have a a water issue here. Uh,
rain gardens andor dry wells. Um, I I'm assuming that your engineer is going to tell you you have to bring down the amount of pavers on a property, what the proper lot coverage should be, and the size of what the dry wells are going to be to alleviate this runoff here. So, if you're in agreement, I can't tell you
what to do. >> Yes, I do. >> Would you like to do that? >> Yes, please. >> Okay. Okay. So, Mr. Herman, uh, could you do what is your opinion on this? >> So, um, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, yes, I agree with what you're saying.
Um, a couple of notes that I have here. Uh, I think that, um, there's the two aspects I mentioned before. You have a coverage issue as it relates to drainage. You also have a coverage issue as it relates to the zoning. So, I think that, um, one of the first steps would
be is is to look at the coverage on the site and look to reduce that coverage in some manner to get closer to the 30% allowable. Now, I don't know if that needs to be 30% for you to be compliant.
You can come back to the board with something above 30%. And you can request a variance on that, but I'm my understanding from what I hear from the board, it's got to be lower than the 42.7%. That's just too much for the area. Uh now, with that,
you should um you have uh Morgan Engineering and surveying. They did the survey. I think one of the things uh you should do is expand the survey a little bit into the neighboring properties with permission from your neighbors so that we can get information of what is going on with the grading at the property
lines like Mr. orphan nupolis said um everything seems to be draining from the back to the front and I apologize how bad I just messed that up >> or fenattopolis >> so I apologize but you know the grading that's shown here it does seem everything comes from the back to the
front but I didn't I wasn't able to see the pictures but if there's something going on propuline maybe there's a small low area that's causing a problem there's some water going back there just not enough detail on this plan to really decipher that so I I think the key is to get that detail. You have Morgan
Engineering and surveying. He can probably help you. Um, uh, the engineer of that firm could probably help you put together a plan. And again, to your point, Mr. Chairman, please have your engineer call me. We can talk through it. I have no problem with that. And
come up with a solution that works, that can protect your neighbors and protect you and and get you closer into compliance that you can ask for the variance. uh take a little time, get that and come back to the board with the new plan and then they can review that specifically. >> And the key here is
>> Yes, sure. >> Yeah, that was a good smart move. The key here is working with Mr. Herman because we want to he knows exactly what the board is looking for. >> Whatever it suggest only from my own experience because I I had to deal with a lot of drainage and situation in my
home recently. your gutters that are all around wherever they're draining. >> You have to tie them into someplace because that's going to create a lot of water from the roof of your house. All that water is going to your property too. So that could be one of your problems. So when you when the engineer
comes, show them where all the gutters are and try to figure out how you can put one pipe, PVC pipe or whatever corrugated pipe so that all the gutters, all the water is going not into your yard but somewhere else into a dry well or rain garden or whatever they suggest. >> It'll probably help your basement as
well. Yeah, the humidity down there. Um, >> thank you. >> Okay, so we're going to carry this forward to another meeting. So, can I go ahead? >> Suggest that uh you may want to have that engineer come with you next time because there may be engineering questions that you can't answer and it'll be more helpful to the board.
>> You saw the previous applicant had, you know, testimony from um professionals. So, I would have bring a professional with you as well. >> Thank you for all suggestions. >> And I would ask the owners of six to code in the back or can their surveyor go on your property? Do you give them permission or do they you can work it
out? You don't have to say now, but >> as long as we know the dog. >> Okay, that's perfect. >> So, so to the applicant, you know, contact them, get their permission, but they'll let you on as long as it's their home where the dogs are sitting. >> And you probably want to expand it maybe to your neighboring properties too, a
little bit. So, not only them, but on their sides get permission. Expand a little bit more probably so you get that information that you need to better come up with a plan. >> Thank you. You're welcome. All right. Can I have a MO? We need to do a date that >> how much time they think they're going
to need and and then carry to a new date. So you don't have to do new notices. >> Ireina, what is >> okay? I was going to say April 15th, April 22nd. >> April 2. April 22nd. >> Yeah. >> 22nd. >> April 22nd.
>> Have time to think two months. I would guess it is. >> Well, we can't do anything to snow first, you know, starts >> May 6. If it's not if it's if if they're not ready yet, we can just carry it again. >> Yeah. Because nobody >> So, why don't we say May 6 for now then?
>> Does May 6 work with you? >> I'm not going to say yes or no. I'm going to accept whatever date you suggest and uh >> then contact you would have to contact the zoning board through the through. >> Yes, ma'am. >> If you need more time.
>> What? Yeah. Why don't we do April 22nd then and we can adjourn it again. We can carry it forward another meeting if if you're not ready. But let's set April 22nd. Okay. >> I think soon. >> So, we also need if you submit a plan at least 10 days ahead. So, keep that in the back of your mind. Your engineer or
surveyor will have to do whatever they're going to do basically in the month of March, very beginning of April, the August. So, they can submit whatever you're going to do back to >> any changes or additional proposals. >> Yeah. Yes. >> There's going to have to be something. >> Yeah, I understand. >> And if you need additional time, Irena,
he should contact you to um request. >> That's correct. And if there is revised plans, I'm assuming we will have I will need it by latest April 12th. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Thank you. >> All right. Can I have a motion to carry this application to the April 22nd meeting >> without further
>> without without further notice? >> Motion. >> I'll second it. >> Do we n Miss Miss Campus? Yeah. Miss Gerard. >> Yes. >> Mr. Luchian. >> Yes.
>> Mr. of Anita Pos. >> Yes, >> Mr. Mr. J Paulo. >> Yes, >> Mr. Sorry, Mr. >> Someone's got the Google >> Mr. and Mr. Burgle.
>> Yes. Yes. >> All right. Um, thank you for your time tonight. >> No, thank you. >> And we'll see you in a couple months um with with your professional. I would definitely recommend bringing a professional to the meeting to kind of assist you. >> I appreciate the board for for the time. >> Oh, you're welcome and thank you for the
public for your comments. >> All right. Uh >> come back too. >> Yeah. April April 22nd if you wanted to come back to hear further testimony. >> All right. Um moving along to the agenda. Do we have any professionals?
>> Uh yes, we have um report. Yes. So u Mrs. Uh Keller, our board planner, is going to give her >> We can stick with Miz. >> Um so yeah, so a couple things. Um hold
on one second. Let me pull that up. >> Thank you. See you soon. >> Thank you everybody. >> Have a good night. >> Good night. >> Okay. So let me show them the annual report. >> Yes. So Arena and I prepared the annual
report which is a required for the MLUL for the zoning board to do every year. And the idea behind the annual report especially for new members is that since the zoning board is more of an independent body it doesn't have any members of the um of the township
committee on it or anything like that. This is your way, our way of letting the township committee, the one who change who's responsible for making ordinance amendments, know what our what's going on at the zoning board and what our recommendations are. So, the first couple pages are just sort of like
descriptions of some of the applications we saw, what in what zone, and then the last page has a few recommendations. Um this is the first one is something um some of these are just things that I've
picked up on over the years. Um because there are you know for example it like there's just some inconsistencies with churches which has come up a few times. Um and then nursing homes in that same chapter and these are just really issues with the ordinance. So it's it really
just administrative things. These things are not permitted but they are in there and it makes it complicated to use. Um and then the the third bullet I have under there is is actually regarding this area that Meadowwood estates where as we heard you've heard over the last few
applications there's kind of a weird thing here where essentially when this project was constructed in the 80s when it was built the township ordinance did not consider driveways to be impervious coverage. If you want to talk about how
far we've come in the last 40 years in terms of storm water management, driveways were not part of lot coverage then. Then after they got approved, but while they were being constructed, driveways became part of lot coverage. And at the time, the lot coverage for these properties were 15%. So all of a
sudden, before people had even moved into these houses, they were non-conforming. And 15%, and I'm going to be honest, 15% lot coverage on lots of these sizes is insane. you can barely put a house there. So, there was a kind of like it was the planning the planning
board did kind of like a blanket approval for the subdivision that we have records of, but that increased it all up to 30% just for this subdivision. However, it's not actually in the ordinance anywhere. It is like I this
came up years ago. I forgot about it. Lonnie retired. We had a panic meltdown one day in in August over this trying to figure it out and then we remembered where it was and we have the resolution. We have all that. So my recommendation is to just put something in the
ordinance whether it's just like by you know by blocks by block and lot something like that and I'll leave that up to someone else to decide if they want to do that. >> So I remember we did something similar in the past with old manner. >> I don't know that one. >> Yeah. So is it maybe before your time?
>> Maybe. I don't know. Yeah. >> Can you look up and see what we do for Old Manor because the lot size >> the lot sizes are similar to Meadowwood's Old Manor, >> right? Well, so the thing is here is that it's already the same. >> Okay. Well, it's already done. The
illegally they are allowed to have 30%. But no homeowner and no, you know, any new staff or anything even no board me anyone looking at the ordinance would have no way of knowing that. So, you know, people bought houses there. you know, they got denial just because
things got lost over time because this this was an approval from the 80s. So, the idea is just to put it in the ordinance. It's not to actually change it. >> I'm agreeing with what you're saying, but okay. >> I'm just saying that old manner we we we used to have a whole every time we'd have an old manor home coming back to
the to the zoning board and we changed some things in there and since then I don't even think we had any in the last year or two an old manner application whether it was a generator or a pool or whatever. I'm just saying something is different between Old Manor and Meadowwoods and I think they should be
the same. So that's it requires a little bit more investigation to find that out because now we seem to be getting Metalwoods all the time >> when we never did before. >> Uh we've gotten a few over the years because they also F. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Understood. >> Can you remember?
>> I don't even know which one Old Man is. >> Bethany. >> Um >> Yeah. No, I know that actually they they put on our front porch about two years ago. >> Yeah. Front porch. Yeah, but that's what I'm saying. >> That might have been a setback. Okay, got it. I I do. Okay. >> This predates everybody that's on this board now. So that's why nobody's
familiar with that. >> All I'm saying is to, you know, research the >> together so we can make sure. >> Yes. To go ahead with what you're proposing, Kate. Just >> add in two separate things >> as guidance as guidance for >> Yep. Liz. Yep. Got it. Okay. Um, my next
comment was to review the zoning map and ordinance to remove districts that are no longer in use, which is something that's come up several times. There's like four different zones that are still on the map that um aren't actual zones anymore. So, that's something that um >> what's an example of that?
>> R2H, which was the R2 historic, that has been now covered by the um the R4R and R4 um conservation zones. And then there's RL40, which was research lab. Um I think that that was Bell Works or something, but you know, these things just don't need to be there
anymore. So it's kind of a big picture item. Um but it's the kind of thing where like >> it's housekeeping. >> Yeah. And we see these in like TRC's like where you know we're talking to other professionals and they're like what like what is this zone you know and they're trying to figure it out. There's also like there's O1, O2, and O3. And I
think only O3 exists on the map. So just housekeeping like that kind of longer term. But the other thing I want to talk about tonight, which is something that's very new, is the generator issue. So, we would amend this. We can amend this to talk about the generator thing. So, um I didn't do reviews for this because why
would I? Um but those generator applications that have come up recently and I have to admit because I didn't do reviews for it. I was like a little confused what the issue was because I said, well, of course, you know, generators and have to be a certain amount of feet from the house, from windows. But then I looked at the ordinance and I realized the issue is
that it can't it it it by building code it has to be if it's enclosed it has to be 18 inches from a wall 5t from any window but per the ordinance a generator and or other things like air conditioning condensers are not allowed
to be more than six feet from a house. So that I don't really understand and I tried to look into like when it was adopted and the most the only thing I can think of is that because the ordinance section is technically called generators and similar residential
appliances. So it's air conditioning units, heat pumps, etc. The idea was that you it says so the the requirement is that the edge of the appliance nearest to the dwelling unit is serving is within six feet of the dwelling unit. And I assume this is so people weren't
just like having like random um you know pertinances all over their backyard. You know something for something noisy that could disturb a neighbor even though a lot of these generators are not noisy anymore. But the thing is is like you know this is Home Depot. This is like the smallest properties we're talking about are like the ones we're hearing
we're here for tonight. Um I I don't think that it's really an issue to be quite honest. Um and especially if it if it counteracts with safety things. And so I looked at a bunch of other ordinances in Mammoth County. Nothing. There's nothing like this. Um I mean
>> I looked at um freehole township Marorrow C not Colt didn't have one. Um Wall Middletown. It's just like you know just as a quick example. It's like what are they? >> So I wonder why we have that ordinance. I I think it's probably because of the
fact that it was just someone you know you don't want to look at your AC I mean you know your AC cooler it has to be closer to the house but just something like that you don't want to look at it so you put it closer to your neighbors then it's worring all day in their face or something like that but you know that I I think that you know you have to look
at the actual whether that's going to actually have a real detriment to people. Um, and the other thing that we can do which I'm going to which I would suggest recommending is that most of these other ordinances they has to comply with the e either the accessory setback for the zone or half of the
accessory setback for the zone. And they also often require um evergreen screening. Some require fencing which I honestly think is a little much. I don't think you need to have a whole fence or stone wall around your air conditioning condensers. Um, but I think that, you
know, maybe something like if it's withinif 20 feet of the property line, you have to have evergreen screening or something like that. But I don't really see any purpose and I to that six foot from the residence. It directly counteracts the building codes which are nonimmutable.
So I would recommend that that that be changed because especially because it's been I don't want to say w but it's been wasting the board's time recently. So and I think and wasting the the public the applicants time. >> Okay. right now is generators and other appliances. So make generators separate
than other appliances. >> I don't really think we need to because like don't don't don't your air conditioning condensers have to be close to the house stuff like that. >> They have to so you don't require how you >> I just don't really see and and things like pool there's no regulation on pool equipment,
>> you know. So to me it's not really logical. Um cuz the pool equipment I think is one of the things that we always see like like that's that that you know you just have to meet the regular setback and I don't see any reason why that should be treated differently than like um AC condensers
or generators. Can can we add um screening of uh you know vegetation screening to that >> ordinance you know after that requirement or eliminate it alto together if you think it's not even necessary >> to that that they even have that in
there this six foot to me >> no I think we don't want the six feet because the six feet to me the the screening would be something to mitigate a a one of these appliances being closer to the property But and also we're not talking about
we're talking about like it has to be the same distance from the property line as any other accessory use. >> Right. So that's what I'm saying. You got to combine them. So the wording is the same for accessory use building as it is for pool equipment or air conditioner. >> Yeah. We we'll figure we don't have to figure out one good thing about this
report is that we don't have to figure out the exact language right now because that's really >> So you're going to send the report to us to review it >> again? Like so right now what Well, we're looking at this, right? This is what I see right here. >> So you're going to put together a report and we're gonna
>> No, I mean this is the report. >> This is it. >> Are they just going to add another? >> I I mean I I honestly I I figured we could just agree to it tonight. I don't I you know the bullet would just say it would the idea would be that that the because we're not we're not trying to write an ordinance here. We're trying to
just say the zoning board has, you know, the zoning board has seen several applicants that um are are dealing have to come to the board because of this conflict between the ordinance location for generators and build and building construction requirements. We recommend
that the that this zoning be changed to um eliminate this six-foot requirement from the building while also uh proposing uh potential screening mechanisms that will protect neighbors. >> Okay. Why don't you uh come up with some
word for that? >> I think I just did. >> I think everyone just wants to review one last time before we send it to town council because that's what we're you're going to send it direct. You're going to send it directly from your >> How about I draft something and I will send it to Kate and and board. I just I
just figured out No, I'm I'm happy to do it. >> I think it's everyone just has a week to look at it and and we'll make any comments. I mean, you'll probably look at it, John. It's legal. Lori, >> we'll let the attorneys loose on it. >> Well, but I mean but yeah, but just what I'm saying is that all this is is just a recommendation. They don't have to do it
and we're not writing the ordinance. So, that's you know, this has no it's nonbinding. That's why, you know, I was just trying to make it easier for everybody to see. >> So, you're not we're not assigning language to it. Like, everybody was very specific. We don't have to worry about that. >> We're just we're just telling them what this board has seen and what we think
could be a potential solution for it. But I'm happy to just write that sentence and recirculate it. I was just trying to save you guys another having to do this again. >> This if we agree, if they agree the council, >> the um >> how often in the past have they made changes based on our recommendations?
>> A lot. A lot. Okay. >> We make recommendations. >> Good. Good. >> Yep. Um sometimes we'll do a few at a like I I don't do I don't write the ordinances for the council anymore, but um for the committee, but like sometimes we would do a few at a time just like cleanup stuff. Um other things like
there was an issue with signage for a while and lighting. I think there was the one with the lighting that we that was recommended >> lighting for basketball court. >> Yeah, that came up again. >> Yeah. But then there's other things where it's like the township's lighting requirements were like um and I think this came from one of the prior board
engineers where that basically every single applicant required a variance for any site plan application for lighting because the standards were really outdated and I think they like banned I can't remember if it was Homedale but they required specific types of lighting
that did not include LED lighting. So sometimes it's just modernizing. >> But yeah, the township committee, if not every year, at least since I've been here, they've done they've at least reacted like four different times. And I think something like this that has a direct impact on residents, um, you know, that's something that
they'd be and it's an easy fix. It's something they'd probably be willing to consider. >> Great. >> Can you also look when you look I know I already said number three, the one before that we were talking about that you referenced, you know, what old manner is and maybe
you can use you know metal wood and old man or or if we want to emulate what has manor has you know reference that way but I think you need to compare the two >> y absolutely I'll see what the language was there >> two things that we need help >> okay
those two developments have that kind of >> those are the only two >> because most of most of homedale is one acre and then there's another part that's coming up that's two and a half acres you want Go by go by the zone and lot size. >> Well well so so Demetri the thing is is
that this change was already made. People in Meadowwood are allowed 30% but per the ordinance it's only 15. >> Yeah. But what about the sideyard setbacks and all the rest of that? Is that all comping with other areas? >> That that I don't think is an issue.
Those are the 15 like I said 15% lock coverage is in my opinion egregious. Um there's no way to comply with that. And the thing is is that the reason this was a special case is because the developer had already gotten approval and then the ordinance was changed. So it's sort of
like like a it's sort of like they got like like a like a I'm like a variance a really every property got a variance a really long time ago to have up to 30%. But the problem is that you don't know that by looking at the ordinance. You
have to dig. And so, you know, I don't I it would be like so I don't I'm going to look into old farms because I don't know exactly what hap what the case was there if it was similar. But I will say to to recommend cha increasing the impervious coverage over that 30%. That's not what
I'm suggesting because that's the kind of thing where you know I don't really see a need. >> 30% is the rule for all of homes. The code for all. >> No, if the 30% every zone is different. >> Okay. >> Some are more than others. Um but in 30%
is what the planning board back in the 80s gave to Meadowwood where the code permits 15%. >> So in just my own knowledge here so a an one acre lot what would that coverage
impervious coverage code be? Um it depends what zone you're in, but it's um so for example um if you're in cluster and non-cluster, but so our so for example R4A non-cluster
they are permitted um 25%. >> Okay. >> And that's 25% of a 1acre lot. That puts in perspective I think how tiny 15% of a >> oneird >> exactly. Um, you know, if you're in the
CL Rif R40B non-cluster two and a half acres that permits 15%. >> Okay. >> So, I think so I mean maybe actually well I know I I'll think about this maybe the answer is to just change the whole zone the R what is it RTH or
whatever it's called that MTO wood is in. But the thing is is that you know a lot of these not to get too his historical here but a lot of these zones that like RTH cluster RSC R this R that they were kind of created like like ad hoc back in like the 70s and 80s and so
there's only like one of them. So that's why this doesn't come up other places. I believe that Meadowwood is the only RTH cluster development in Homeell Township and that's why that 15% like doesn't arise in other places. So, I mean, look, I'm going to be brutal. This entire
ordinance needs a major overhaul, but that's like a two-year $100,000 project. So, we're not proposing that. >> Woods may be RTH2. We gave them the variance to do the eight homes instead of the 13, >> right? But that's also RTH regular, not
RTH cluster. So, yes, >> we have a lot of things. We trying to make it easier for the homeowners not spending thousands of dollars to some things. >> Okay. Well, what we can then what we would do is to is make a recommendation
to look at at at setback or look at regulations for the RTH cluster zone. I'm not making those recommendations now. You have to like I >> Yeah. >> Okay. I I don't know what your bullet's going to say on the generators, but the second one really was within six feet. It was in the setback though. That's why
we had the second generator. So, it was really only one that was outside the six feet. So just when you're wording that, I wouldn't say we had a couple that needed six foot relief. The the second one really was a setback issue. They only had 12 feet on the sideline. So he
was within six of the house, but it encroached into that 10-ft setback. >> Right. >> So Okay. Okay. >> Only the one guy had an anomaly with the six foot. >> All right. Thank you, Kate. I'll add this for the comment uh where you said
that um the generators are not >> the generators are not that noisy anymore. Um I don't know but I I can remember in you know past five six years whenever there was a bad storm my whole neighborhood sounds like a strip. Sounds like yeah it sounds like an air.
>> Well that's the problem is that is that you know if you do a little testing here and there it's not that bad. And then I think that there's I don't know if it's a state there's maybe it's state regulation, but it's like when there is an emergency those kind of noise things don't really apply anymore. So um you I
think it it's it's yeah I I don't want to say they're not noisy anymore because they still are. But um I think that that's not the main purpose of why that was I I don't think I don't think it's enough rationale to have it be that you're that close to the house.
>> All right. Thank you again, Ms. Keller. >> Um, so we're not voting on anything for this annual report, right? >> Uh, what was that? >> No. >> No. Okay. Uh, so one question I had. So the and I don't know if this is on the record, Marty. I was just cured the
application, Mr. uh, Jenning, is is there something still being on the resolution? No. Okay. All right. >> Um, in that case, is there any more questions or comments from the board? >> Motion. I have a motion to uh adjurnn. >> Motion to adjurnn.
>> Second. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I.