I I Hello. How are you? >> All right. Um >> All right. We're going to start this meeting now. Uh, call to order. 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 in town hall, all pursuant to section 13 of the Open Public Meetings Act. Uh, roll call. Mr. Connelly, Mr. Connelly is absent. Mr. Caran, Mr. Caran is absent. Mr. Varnerham >> here. Uh,
>> Mr. Fagan here. >> Miss Plaus >> here. >> Mr. Bell. >> Mr. Antonucci >> here. >> Mr. Man >> here. >> Mr. Silverman >> here. >> Uh, Mr. Dorse. Mr. Dorse is absent. Uh, Mr. Robbins. Mr. Robinson is absent. M.
We have a quorum. Thank you. >> Thank you. All right. Uh, please rise for the pledge of allegiance. I aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and
justice for all. >> And a moment of silence honor the military, police, and first responders. Thank you. Okay. Um there's no resolutions on the agenda for today. However, we do have
the minutes from our May 19th uh meeting. Uh if there are any questions or comments on those meetings? Anyone? If not, uh will someone make a motion to accept those minutes? >> Motion.
>> I eligible to vote. Mr. Vanderham. >> Yes. >> Mr. Man, >> yes. >> Miss Plaus, >> yes. >> And Mr. Silberman, >> yes. >> Thank you. For the record, May 19th, 2023. Minutes were successfully approved. >> All right.
Okay. Uh, now on to the hearings. Uh, item one for today is PB 2025F, St. Benedict Catholic Church and School, 165 Bethany Road. 165 Bethany Road, Homedale, New Jersey. Block 30.09, lot
6.01, Homedale, New Jersey. The applicant seeks amended preliminary and final site plan approval for first and second floor additions to the existing main building, which would allow four new classrooms and/or communal spaces totaling approximately 15,533
ft of additional floor area. The project will be built in two phases with a change from the original approval. Uh at this time counselor, >> let's check with notices in order and
escros are good. >> That is correct. >> And for all the hearings tonight and as they may continue, we're swearing our witnesses also. So and you want to tell the truth, nothing about the truth. So help >> for the record. Our professionals have
been sworn in. I'm sorry. We'll we'll get to you in a second. >> Sorry. Now >> TG has to recuse. >> Oh, yes. Sorry if we have one. Um, one of our uh members have to recuse himself for this hearing. So, he's going to step out of the hearing room and he'll return for the second. Thanks, TJ.
>> Thank you. We still have uh six six members. >> I'm sorry. For the record, 7:08 p.m. Mr. Mstepped off the application for St. Benedict. Thank you. >> Thank you. Good evening, chairman, members of the board. Dante Alfieri on behalf of the applicant. As the chairman
stated, we're here on behalf of St. Benedict's Church. This application was previously approved in October of 2025. Um, we're here seeking amending amended approval. Unfortunately, um, our client's contractor walked out on them. Um, and in the process, we've we've
resubmitted and made some slight modifications. I have one individual to provide testimony tonight, our engineer, who's going to run through those modifications. And with those modifications, we've actually reduced some of the variance relief that was previously granted. So without further ado, I'm going to call up our engineer who happens to be
sitting right next to me, Mr. Wolf. >> We'll swear them in. You swear to tell the truth, nothing about the truth. So I hope you got >> I do. State your name for the record. >> Doug Wolf, w to be qualified. >> Yeah. Mr. Wolf, if you don't mind please providing your credentials for the
board. Sure. Um, Doug Wolf, work at Bowler Engineering, 30 Independence Boulevard, Sweet 200 in Warren, New Jersey. I have a bachelor of science in civil engineering from Virginia Tech. I have a PE in the state of New Jersey. I've testified before multiple boards in the state as well as this board before
earlier this year uh for the prior approval and I have a current uh license that is in good standing. Okay. Thank you. >> Uh so, Mr. Well, if you don't mind just running through uh the changes from the previous approval to what's being
proposed tonight. >> Sure. Um quickly, I'm going to reorient everyone just so we know where we are. This is the St. Ben's um first. This is exhibit A1. I'll mark it as that. Uh this is a St. Ben's Church and School, 165 Bethany Road Township at Homeell, Mammoth County, New Jersey. Uh [snorts]
block 30.09, lot 6.01, 1 21.7 acres in size and is shown in yellow on the screen in front of you. Uh zone is R40B and private school is a permitted use. Moving on to the site
plan improvements. I'll zoom in here so everyone can see. We'll mark this exhibit A2. This is titled overall site plan rendering exhibit prepared by Bowler dated 616206. Um, as stated before, we're proposing a two-phase building addition with ancillary parking, sidewalk, storm
water, utility, landscaping, and lighting improvements, uh, which previously received approval earlier this year. We are coming in now for amended preliminary and final site plan approval just with respect to the phase one portion. That phase one portion is
highlighted in the bottom right corner here. I'm now going to move on to a comparison exhibit which will identify some of the changes I'm going to go through. So this is a site plan comparison exhibit. We can mark this A3 prepared by Bowler
dated 616206. Again the phase one portion is the focus of this application. Um the phase one building which is shown previously where my mouse is here that is now being removed and relocated to what is shown
on the right side of the page. The right side of the page is our new proposal that has been submitted to the board and its professionals. [laughter] The phase one building addition has been revised to eliminate the 1700 foot portion as discussed and instead we will be
proposing a modular unit that is this building rectangular portion shown here. Size is 102 ft x 23.3 ft approximately 2380 ft in size. Again we had to change construction methods due to the contractor dropping out at the last
minute. We were going to do tiltup. That was no longer possible. Now it's going to be a modular and that that modular did not fit in the original location and that is the reason we now need to relocate it further into this area as shown here.
Overall the number of students and teachers will um remain the same. Students and teachers will enter this building from an existing door that is located where my mouse is here out of the existing building. Uh we will be providing a sidewalk along
with an ADA ramp and stairs proposed at the entrance along the right hand side here as well as three other egress points on the left hand side of the page. The four canopy trees previously proposed are going to be relocated
towards the bottom as shown where my mouse is now. Number of trees are going to remain the same. We're not reducing any trees here. Um, in terms of circulation, we have sent this revised plan to the fire marshal or fire official, excuse me. We're awaiting any comments from him.
However, we have addressed his prior comment letter that he issued during the last public hearing. Um, so we're just working to wrap that up. In terms of parking, there are now 275 parking spaces proposed where there was 277 proposed previously. So, that's two
less. And the reason for that is because we're working with the township professionals to do some restriping in the ADA area. You can see in this inset um up in the top right there was some non-compliant widths. We're complying with that. Now, as a result, two of
those spaces had to be reduced. In terms of bulk requirements, quickly running through these lot area, lot depth, lot frontage, lot width, front yard setback, sideyard setback, rear yard setback are all to remain unchanged from the prior approval. In terms of max
building height, we will be proposing a compliant building height of 29.99 ft for phase 2 and 17.7 feet for the phase 1 modular building where 30 ft is permitted. In terms of max coverage by primary structures, driveways and accessory
uses. U this number has been revised per comments from the engineer to remove sidewalk and gravel as part of the calculation per the definition in the ordinance. Uh these accurate numbers now are as follows. In the existing condition, there's 31.5%
coverage. The previously approved condition was 30.2% coverage, which required a variance condition. We are now proposing a slight increase here to 30.5% and are requesting a variance for this slight increase. Again, this is just due
to the relocation requirement of this modular building uh being in the landscape area here. That is only a.3% requirement from what was previously approved. And again, we are reducing that from the existing um non-conforming condition of 31.5%.
Moving on to lighting for phase one, the two previously approved area lights are being replaced with one area light and 10 wall mounted lights. There's going to be one area light on the southern portion of the page here and then 10 wall-mounted area lights around this modular building shown where my mouse
is. The lighting level and colors are consistent with prior approval uh with three approved waiver requests being reduced in intensity and are as follows. We're requesting a waiver for 2.04 foot candle average illumination at ground level where 0.5 to1 is required. We're
requesting a waiver for 4.08 maximum average to minimum uniformity ratio where 4:1 is required and a waiver for 10.2 to1 maximum to minimum uniformity ratio where 10 to1 is required. Again, in all three of these um values, we're
reducing from the prior approval and not exacerbating landscaping. I hit on we're relocating those four trees. Quantities are to remain the same as previous previously approved, excuse me. And in terms of approvals, we've received F FSCD uh
102125. County, we've received 3926. TWWA, D, we've received 42826. and fire. We're working to address their comments with regards to the letters
received to date um from PSNS dated June 11, 2026 and Phillips Pressy dated June 9, 2026. Uh we agree with and can comply with those comments. I'm happy to walk through any of them or um address any
questions that the professionals may have at this time. >> Thank you, Mr. W. Thank you. Uh Craig Kate, >> can you just repeat those impervious coverage numbers? I I just want to make sure we have them right because I think what you said is different than what I had.
>> Sure. [clears throat] >> All right. So, existing condition 31.5%. Previously approved 30.2%. and then proposed as part of this amended application 30.5%. >> Okay. >> And the reason I had looked into this
before I came. The reason you might be seeing different numbers is the plan set that was submitted during the last approval. Um different numbers were testified to because we revised per a comment received from the engineer to
reduce sidewalks and gravel. So that's why those numbers are different. >> Got it. Because Okay. I I took it from the resolution which but then you but then you did it again. So sorry can you just repeat? So so because what I what I had was prior to the I I just I you don't need it like you need a technical variance but everything's going to
improve. So okay so we had 34.7 this is what this oh this is an old one sorry >> the 34.7 was before we removed the sidewalk from that calculation. Okay. And so in between the approval >> that was granted last in no October or November whatever
>> and the resubmission that's why that number went down. That's correct. >> Okay. Got it. So so but the the the main thing is that the new what you're proposing now is 30.4 >> 30.5. >> 30.5. Okay. Yes. That's the number that really matters. So Okay. Great.
>> Thank you. >> Just a couple questions. Uh thank you uh Keith. actually had questions on the the coverage, but I understand now that you said it that you know the existing condition went down because of the removal of the sidewalk. Correct. >> So, yeah.
>> Um to clarify, I think in the original approval, you you requested a variance for the parking stall size. Uh that now goes away because you're complying by uh restriping. Is that true?
>> Uh that is not technically correct. the ADA portion now complies. There are still a few nonconforming stalls throughout the site. Um, but again, it's a slight non-conformity. We're talking 0.1.2 ft. >> So, you still need that variance then. >> Well, so it was already granted.
>> Yeah, >> it was already granted. And so, I think I think the plans do notate that it has been corrected. So, just I mean it's really tiny, but just keep it as an existing condition on the plans. Understood. They are. >> Yeah. >> Um, then two other things. one. Can you
describe what's going on where phase one used to be? The little notch kind of in the center of all three buildings. >> Sure. So, this is where phase one used to be. Now, I'm going to zoom into our proposed plan. Currently, it's going to
be replaced with green space and a sidewalk. Um, there's a few cleanout structures here associated with the sewer. However, we'll make sure and I saw you commented on this. [clears throat] We'll make sure it's spotted out and graded appropriately where we can direct water
away from the building in a in a proper manner there. >> Okay. And then one other thing for the board, if you could kind of walk through site circulation in terms of not only cars but pedestrians, especially since there's no like direct ADA parking
associated with the phase one. >> Sure. So, school I want to be clear, school drop off and pickup is not occurring at this bottom portion of the page here. Um, all the pickup and drop off occurs where it current where it currently does
at the entrance of the building. If you can see where my mouse is circled right here, that's where the pickup and drop off occurs for cars and passengers. Um, those students will then enter the building and they will travel through to an existing door in this location. From
there, they will exit the building outside and then have to travel to the modular entrance uh via sidewalk that we're proposing. >> Okay. Thank you. And the drop off area, I guess down on the end of the building there, is that what's that for?
>> No, it looks like a drop off area. So, I see where you're coming from there. Um, that is not the intent of this whatsoever. It is more a it's an access crosswalk if teachers want to take their students outside or if you know someone needs to cross the road that's just in
this area for some reason. But that's not the intent for this to be a drop off and pickup area. >> Okay. And that is one way circulation. I guess it'd be clockwise around. >> That's correct. Yes. Oneway circulation page right to left. Uh we are proposing some restriping there as well to clean that up.
>> Okay. Thank you. >> That's it. Okay. Um, any questions from members of the board? >> One quick question. The hallway once they exit the building and they come into the >> mod
[clears throat] once they exit the building and they and they they're approaching the modular classrooms. Is there a covered walkway in case it's snowing, raining, so they're not getting soaked? I don't know. Your a little canopy of some sort.
It is not proposed to be covered at this time. >> How far did they have to walk if it was pouring? >> Uh, it's approximately, let me see, it's about 50 to 75 ft approximately
from this door to um this area here. >> Is there there's existing modular classrooms, right? Is there a similar setup there? closer or I I don't I believe that those Do you remember that a couple years ago they came in for that? >> Um I'm not sure what the distance is there, but I think it was the same thing
where there was no >> It's approximately the same distance. Yes. >> And just just to note, we we pushed this as far up as we could. We're trying to limit that distance. It's really a factor of the size of the modular and that it can't be reduced any further. Um
so we we tried to shorten that to the extent possible. >> Okay. The previous uh edition on the building, how was that twotory or one story? So the previous edition, let me just go to the page here.
>> One story. >> Yeah, this is one story for phase one here. >> Okay. The >> phase two is is is something totally different. >> I see. So in that uh phase one, what was what did that consist of? Classrooms. >> Yes, that's correct.
>> And how many classrooms? >> Like three. >> It was two or three classrooms. I'd have to look at the prior >> two. >> And in the new setup, how many classrooms are there? >> Three classrooms. >> Three classrooms. And when you enter that separate building now like from the outside are there three
doors for three separate classrooms or you walk into a central >> here I will show architectural plan real quick >> here. So you walk into a corridor basically vestibule area and then there's an option to enter each of the three classrooms via a door.
>> Okay. Uh regarding then in the previous setup you would have had obviously a corridor or some type of connection. The main building is going to stay as it is for phase one. >> That's correct.
You're tying in the safety and fire and so on to to the main building. Yes. Okay. And so um this is exclusive of phase two. Phase two still needs to be approved or that was approved. >> That was approved and it is to remain as
previously approved. >> Okay. Um just a comment on Joyce's comment that uh I've been involved with buildings that are separate and when it snows and rains, you'd be very thankful to have a covered walkway uh between
those two buildings. So uh so I would just throw that out there. That's all. All right. Um, all right. So, we're here today because primarily you contractor walked out, right? >> Correct. >> Correct.
>> Okay. >> So, what is the difference between the original plan that was approved? I mean, what are we doing differently uh you know from the initial plan versus now? And are there any variances or waiverss are looking for due to that
change? The only the [clears throat] only real the the new variance which is actually it's still a variance technically but it represents a better condition is that impervious coverage that we just discussed. >> Okay. That's >> where they're actually reducing it. >> They're reducing it. So
>> yes. So it still is over the 25% that's permitted but it's being reduced from both you know what's in place now and what the board approved a few months ago. >> Okay. And so what what they're proposing now is actually better >> better. And I believe that's also the case with some of the lighting mar the lighting waiverss that were granted
previously. >> Um so yes and so essentially what this application is doing is this is an amended site plan application amending your approval from last year. Um you will you technically need to grant the new the new variance for for the
impervious coverage. And I'll let Craig discuss if there's any other waiverss that maybe be tweaked a little bit just so we have it correct for the record. No. So nothing else. So, it's just that impervious coverage. Um, and it would only be amending preliminary and final major site plan approval for phase one of the project. Phase two would remain
exactly the same as proposed. Um, but it would still be subject to this new site plan application. So, basically both resolutions are going to continue to apply. >> Okay. Okay. Anyone else have any questions? I guess at this time uh we'll open the
public questions uh if anyone wants to come up. Going once, twice. Okay. No, you have a question. >> Okay. >> Victoria Scottina 8 hidden hollow Terrace. Was the original plan approved
already for your phases? >> Yes, >> they were. When? What year? What date? >> October of 2025. Thank you. That's all my question. >> Okay. Uh if no one else has any questions, I'm going to close public
questions for now. And now I'll ask for uh comments. If you have any comments, public comments? No. Okay. We will uh close public comments, I guess. Um at this time, we'll ask if anyone has a motion to
accept the application. Right. Morning. I see no reason not to approve this application as well as inherited beneficial use. I make a motion to >> We have a second. >> Second, >> Mr. Vanderham.
>> Yes. >> Mr. Fagan, >> yes. >> Miss Plaus, >> yes. >> Mr. Bell, >> yes. >> Mr. Antonucci, >> yes. >> And Mr. Silverman, >> yes. >> Thank you. Motion passed. >> Thank you, chairman, members of the board. We appreciate your time tonight. >> Thank you.
Um, we can have TJ come back in. >> Okay. Uh, next on the item on the list is PB 2026B, Hackinack Meridian Hospital, 735 North Beer Street. An application seeks bulk variance relief pursuant to NJSA
4055D-70C, one to permit a lot depth of 264.6 6 ft whereas 264.6 ft is an existing non-conforming condition and 300 ft is required two to permit front yard setback from Homedale Road of 142.89 ft
whereas 142.89 89 ft is an existing non-conforming condition and 150 ft is required and three to permit 107 parking spaces whereas 107 parking spaces are existing and 112 parking spaces are
required. Um at this time I'll turn it over to you and >> I'm sorry to interrupt through chair u for the record 729 Mr. Man came back to the meeting. >> Okay. and is eligible to vote. >> Just for the record, the arena notices
and escros are in order. >> That's correct. Thank you. >> Well, we did serve notice and uh of course satisfactory. This is an application for the existing facility located on the site operated by Hackinack Meridian. There's in the back
of the building there's a in on the first floor the second floor above it there was an open area of about 300 square feet or so. It was like a indoor outdoor patio just the back wall that's not there. The uh this is an application to install a black back wall and utilize
that square footage for uh onsite activities. There no there no new variances created. There are existing variances that were outlined that have been on the site for quite a while. I have two witnesses this evening. Laura
Torano, a licensed architect, and Mark Lever, our civil engineer. With your permission, I'm going to ask that they be called or Sure. >> Laura be called and we'll proceed. >> Okay, >> John, we'll swear on both witnesses.
could you just tell the board about your licensing and professional standard? >> Sure. >> No, it's it's on already. >> Um, I have a masters of architecture. >> I'm sorry. Could you spell your last name, please? >> It's Toronto, T R R A N O.
>> Um, I have a masters of architecture from New Jersey Institute of Technology and I'm licensed in the state of New Jersey. My license is in good standing and I have appeared before other boards in Mammoth County. And how long have you been practicing? >> About 12 years.
>> Sure. Thank you. >> Having now you're accepted by the board. Could you advise the board about your plans? Are you prepared for this renovation and then describe the proposal? >> Okay. Um it's an existing two-story medical building operated by Hagenac
Meridian Health. There is um an existing covered patio off the back of the building. The proposed plans are to enclose that space to create um a nurses station and two new exam rooms. Um there's also an existing room, a chamber
room that isn't being um the whole space isn't being efficiently used. So in in closing that covered patio, we're um shifting the equipment down, making that room smaller to open up some space to have a new utility room. They're also adding a new ADA compliant bathroom for
staff. >> Okay. Um and uh modifying the lounge due to accommodate the new ADA space. >> With regard to this building addition, the only addition to the exterior is is that portion of the rear wall. Is that
correct? >> Yeah, the portion on the left of the screen is the existing um patio. And so we will enclose that space to um accommodate the new layout. >> Okay. And can you describe um what's going into the interior?
>> Um so as I mentioned it's two uh new exam rooms, a nurses station um and modifying the existing chamber room. >> And this space will be actively utilized for serving patients. >> Yeah, it will improve improve the efficiency and circulation of the space.
Now will the building remain and all operations other than this area remain in operation during the construction? >> Um it will be a phase construction to keep the space operable. >> Do these renovations increase the
capacity of this of the site? >> Uh no there it does not increase staff or um people visiting patients visiting the site. Um, one of the main reasons for this is that there's a a limit on the stretcher compliant rooms. So, by
adding these two exam rooms, we have more access for the stretchers to be in the exam rooms because that's how a lot of the patients come to the space. >> Could I say to the board that this is an expansion to provide more thorough and accurate service to the existing clientele? >> Yes.
And in that regard, have you had an opportunity to examine or have any of the uh officials at the facility discuss the utilization of the parking area? >> Yeah. And speaking to um doctors and staff, they said there's always available parking. We've gone on three
different visits to the site and there's always ample parking. >> What did you find on those visits? >> Um there ranged from 20 to 50 spots open in the parking lot. >> 41 to 60 spots. Yeah. those three occasions >> most um are coming most patients are coming by medical transport.
>> So one was at 2:30 in the afternoon on June 11th >> that was 41 spacesh >> on again in June 11th at 4 o'clock there were 60 open spaces and on June 15th at 9:30 a.m. there were 50 open spaces that
yes that's correct >> Mr. General, I have no other questions for Laura. >> Okay. Uh Craig and Kate, do you have any questions of this witness? >> I don't for this witness. I just want to clarify because I think testimony was given to this effect, but um the
applicant does technically require a parking variance because they of the way the medical office zone is structured by adding the 300 square feet even though there's no new patients or anything. The the parking requirement goes from 110 to 112. So they're at 107. were not concerned even you know and they did
provide testimony but that is technically and it was it was noticed for that as well. >> Exactly. Exactly. Exactly. I just wanted to clarif because I think I think it might have said that there were no variances but there there just is that one. So that's >> none of the application. >> No the other two are the other two are
pre-existing nonconformities. Yes. >> Okay. >> Um anyone on the board have anything for this witness? >> Yeah I just have a question. Can you can you talk again about or explain more about the no increase to capacity even though you're adding exam rooms? H how how do you get to that?
>> Well, um right now there the exam rooms there's only one that has room for a stretcher. So the two new ones where most a lot of the um patients that are coming to the space are coming on stretchers. So the two new exam rooms are stretcher compliant.
>> Um so other rooms won't be able to be used because they can't um accommodate a stretcher. Okay. >> And I just have a very quick question. I see your floor plan here, but when I'm looking at the survey, I just want to know, >> is this where you're proposed? At the
very top of it says construction and >> the survey was of course prepared under our engineers direction. He's our next witness. But as you're looking at that >> where I have it circled >> right there, that is the area that is shown on the >> Okay. I think
>> because on the floor plan, okay, it's up on the screen now. I just wasn't sure where it was proposed at. >> Yeah, >> the floor the floor plan wasn't pointing north, so it looked kind of 90°. >> It's just a little patio area. >> Okay. >> There actually is a portion of the
concrete will be removed that extends beyond um the face of the building. It's it's about 70 square feet. So, we're technically reducing the footprint of the building, but um it's only in the area that's covered that will be we're We're in closing. >> Our engineer and surveyor is going to
testify of concrete outside of the building. >> Two two things. >> Okay. >> Um are you the only tenant in the building? Are you tenants in the building or do you own the building?
>> This is Hackinat Meridian operates the building. is associated with the hospital and they operate the building. >> So in essence, you're the only people in that building. >> So all that parking we're discussing is for you, >> correct?
>> Okay. >> Oh, I'm sorry. I misunderstood what you were asking for. This the entire building is operated by Hackinack Meridian. There is no other users and all of those are associated with the programs that are at the facility now.
Just in regard to parking, there's no adversarial people here that says you're taking up my parking. >> It's it's pretty hard to get to by foot, but a lot of my understand I can ask Laura, but the testim the study showed
that about 20% of the patients are delivered or picked up and picked up at this site. So there isn't that further reduces the traffic load in that site. Wes, if I could answer just direct because think of what you're asking. Hagenac Meridian owns this property, owns this building. There's no condo.
There's no one else who has any interest in this site who's not represented by Mr. Junko right now. >> So that that's >> and lastly, what was the purpose of this opening now? Was that people go out smoke a cigarette? Is that the idea? >> Rest area react relaxation rest area.
Something that I think I don't know because at the time this was built before I was involved with the this site. I've been involved with for quite a few years. It was always just there and from time to time someone might have gone out there to have a cigarette or
have a Pepsi or whatever it might be. >> Yeah. >> Yes. >> Okay. Um, you want to wait for the other witness before we go to public questions or comments? >> Yeah. I mean, do we have any public
comments for this witness or questions for this witness? You do. Come on up. Is this a question? >> Yeah. >> Okay, come on up. >> State your name and address, please. >> Uh, my name is Mo. Uh, we live at 750
Home Road, which is >> I'm sorry. Could you spell your last name? >> Uh, Lams. L O K A N A D H A M. >> Thank you. Uh so we live at 750 Home Road which is
exactly adjacent uh to uh is pick the mic up a little. >> Yeah. So it's uh exactly adjacent uh to the property that's uh there. So I just wanted to know if uh there's any way we would be affected as uh you know the
property or the fence is uh exactly adjacent if there's any extension uh involved or you know how would we be affected? >> Yeah. No, the existing building footprint will remain the same. It's just that that covered patio will add a new exterior wall with the finishes to
match existing. Um, so it wouldn't impact um any of the >> No, it's the existing it's just going to enclose that existing wall. So, it will be continuous instead of having that opening. >> Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I think if you're on
Homedale Road, I don't think you'll even >> Yeah. The back of the building, >> be honest, because where where it's it's situated in relation to Homedale Road. So, >> thank you. Uh, any other questions for this witness? All right. Close public questions. If there's any comments for
this witness, >> what do >> I'll do? Okay. I'll do comments at the end. Okay. >> Sure. I'd like to call Mark Lever. >> Sure. Hi, >> Mark is Mark. Describe your licensing to the board. >> Hi, good evening. Uh, first name is Mark
with a C. Last name is Liber. I graduated with a bachelor of science degree in civil engineering from Drexler University. I have a graduate degree. It's an MBA from Ruckers Grad School and I was licensed in 2003 as a professional engineer. 2005 as a planner. In 2006, I uh completed the municipal engineering
certificate program, testified before this board and all throughout Mammoth County and Middle Sex County as well. >> Yes. Thank you. >> Mark, have you had an opportunity to review the letters prepared for this by Craig and Kate?
>> Yes, I have. With regard to that, do you want to address any of the particular comments such as the status of the Floros area? >> Yeah. >> Mark, could you I'm going to change the
question then. Mark, could you make it could you describe the characteristics of the building that would affect this application? Yeah, just to, you know, set the scenery here. It's a 2.3 acre property with a two-story building. It's got parking in the front side yards. Um,
this photo is really what the whole project is about. There's a little, I call it an al cove in the building. It's in the back that's going to go away. They're going to be a new exterior wall there uh to match what's existing. And there's about 70 square feet of sidewalk
that's going to be picked up. If you want to call that a reduction in lot coverage, it is. But there was a question about how this affects floor area ratio and parking. Right now, the gross floor area is about 16,52 square ft. Uh if we increase it by 300 square
feet, we're up to 16802. on a lot area that's 100,144 square feet, we calculate that the current F is.1648 and the proposed F is.1678, which is both in conformance with code. So, it's
a very minor change. As far as parking, uh there's really no concern that there's not enough parking on the property. We were actually out there today, midday, and there's at least 40 or 50 parking spaces available. So technically, this increase in floor area
does require um two more parking spaces. So we're deficient by five, but I see no reason to be concerned about it because there's a lot of parking out there right now. Um the only thing I did want to mention is
um >> Mark as a submitted >> um it was submitted on email I believe. >> Okay, >> we can mark it. >> Okay. Did we >> as
>> you know I just want to say like we're not we're not increasing the footprint of the building. Um we're not changing circulation here. We're not even cutting down a single tree. This is a very minor application. Um we're not even triggering disturbance to require permit
from field soils. We don't need to do anything with water and sewer or electric or anything like that. We're really just taking that al cove there and making it part of the building and that's it. >> Mark, will you confirm that the site is uh less than 5,000 square ft and exempt
from soil conservation review? >> Yes, it is. >> And have you reviewed any uh the letters issued by the planner and engineer? >> I have. >> Any questions or comments on those letters other than compiance? No, I mean the bulk of the engineering report was about submission waiverss that we'd
asked for, which I thought was practical in the sense that due to the limited scope of the application, we didn't need to provide many of the things on the checklist that you're used to seeing >> and you've had an opportunity to review the variances and the fact that there is no impact to the variances and in your
opinion as a professional engineer, is there any issue whatsoever with regard to the continuation of those variances? >> Correct. There's absolutely no detriment here. The two existing non-conformities are pertain to the building itself which remain unchanged. Uh and again you heard plenty of talk about the parking
situation out there. So there's really no detriment. We're not creating a nuisance or aggravating any existing uh issues so to say. So I don't have any concerns. And with regard to the parking variance, even though we're adding this square footage, are you satisfied that based on the study and the analysis of
the parking lot and current utilization that uh there's adequate parking for this facility once it's fully operational? >> 100%. >> Mr. I have no other direct questions for the record. Are you able to comply with
any comments? Oh, and with regard to the review letter sat, are you able to satisfy the comments that were presented through by the consultants? >> Yeah, I mean there was really part C technical comments in the PSNS letter from June 10th. Um I think we addressed
number one. Number two, that dimension will be added to the plan. Um the other items here are either testimony items or statements. So we we really don't have any comments on the letter. It was a very um very nice letter. He he's addressed my my questions with
the F. Yes. >> I think that's already. >> Okay. You know, Mr. Chairman, uh I just a lot of my comments I wanted the the engineer to discuss so the board had a feeling of the changes and dimminimous nature of them.
>> Are you satisfied? >> Yes. >> Okay. Um >> I I would just just reminder this. The reason this is here is because you're not exempt from site plan approval if you're adding any type of floor area that requires a change in parking. So the 300 square feet requires two
additional parking spaces because it's one per 150. So that's why you know they're here but agree with all the characterization. This is very dimminimous. >> Yeah. That I mean that summarizes it the best. It's really that's really what we're just voting on whether they should provide two extra parking spaces when
they have 40 or 50 empty ones as it is. >> Yes. and and and they also mentioned that everyone comes not everyone but many patients come via transport. So we uh no no issues on my end with the variance. >> Um anyone on the board have a question?
Uh Kate um in your letter page two number five has to do with the floor area ratio. >> Yes. >> Everything's right there. >> Yes. Mr. Lieber just testified to that. He provided that the number it would go from.1648
to.1678. That's all that I wanted to know. Um just we had it in the record. No variance is needed. >> If I could if you look at that photo where that area is open, it's just going to have a wall there and become part of the facility.
>> Yeah. No, we get we get that. Yeah. It's just um anyone else uh public questions to this witness? Anyone? Okay. No. Uh then at this time I'll ask if there's any public comments
for these witnesses. If not, uh anyone make a motion to accept the application? >> Okay, I'll second. >> Mr. Randham? >> Yes. >> Mr. Fagan? >> Yes. >> Miss Plaus? >> Yes.
>> Mr. Bell? >> Yes. >> Mr. Antonucci? >> Yes. Mr. Man. >> Yes. >> And Mr. Sberman. >> Yes. >> Motion passed. Thank you. >> Thank you. Thank you, gentlemen. Okay. Uh, last on the agenda is PB 2025G,
23 Main Street, Urban Renewal LLC. The applicant The applicant has applied to the board for the property located at 23 Main Street, Homeell, block 13, lot 15, the property, which is subject to the Vonnage headquarters redevelopment plan for final major site plan approval for
phase two of the redevelopment, which includes the construction of a new senior living townhouse community with 65 for sale town homes, town houses, and with 13 units set aside as affordable units to be located inside of the Loop Road and to the west of the existing
building along with associated roadways, walking paths, parking areas, and related amenities, all in accordance with the redevelopment plan. The applicant requests any variance relief waiverss, design exceptions, and/or checklist submission waivers as may be required and granted, as well as other
relief as the board may deem appropriate. Counselor, >> good evening board members, uh, board professionals. Uh, my name is Carl Chem from the law firm of Minimman Scotland. lawyer for the applicant. Um, as you all may recall, this is the prior Vonnage
site. We were previously here and received a resolution of approval in March 3. Um, those approvals granted the preliminary final major subdivision to subdivide off a 5 acre parcel along Main Street uh to be dedicated to the town.
We also had a preliminary sitewide major site plan approval and then we also had finer major site plan approval for phase one which in short was the rehabilitation of the existing office building. Tonight's application is relatively simple and narrow and straightforward. Tonight is solely the
phase two and and the uh sheet from our our plans are up there. Phase two is on the western side of the interior of the loop road and to the west of the existing building. That is a citizen townhouse community of 65 forale town
homes. Uh which includes as required by your COA settlement uh 13 affordable units. Uh there's been relatively minor changes to that phase two from the time of preliminary site plan approval and our witnesses will go through those. We
have also received the uh board professionals reports and other reports we will address through testimony. The um two witnesses we will have for you this evening are our architect uh and our site engineer as the other testimony
regarding things such as the traffic and the like uh were provided at the preliminary and have not been changed. No additional units. Uh there's no need for uh testimony in that regard. Um the applicant has provided notice in accordance to municipal land use law as
well as the township ordinances vesting board with jurisdiction to hear this matter. Um and if there's no other preliminary comments or questions we'll proceed with our first witness. >> Sure. >> Thank you Mr. Chairman. >> Just check Carl. >> Yes. All correct. All good.
>> Okay. Thank you Marty. Thank you. Our first witness will be our architect who's seated to my right who's Christy De Bartolo. Christie would you raise your right hand. Be sworn in please. You just want to tell the truth about the truth. >> I do. >> Just spell your name for the record. >> Sure. Uh, first name C H R I S T Y. Last
name is Dartolo. D I B A R T O L O. >> And before we continue, what will be on the screen is the five sheet set of architectural plans that were submitted. There were very minor changes from those. So, we'll be marking this as exhibit A1, which is the five sheet set.
And Christie will give the detail on the revision date. Uh, There's a few minor shape uh changes and she'll go through those as well. Christie, turn it over to you to go through this uh plans for us. >> Sure. >> Oh, I'm sorry. I apologize.
>> Yes. Um >> Yes. So, I have my Bachelor of Architecture from the Wentworth Institute of Technology in Boston. I'm a licensed architect in New Jersey. My license is current and in good standing. I am also licensed in Massachusetts. I
have over 25 years of experience in residential and multif family design, including affordable housing projects in New Jersey. I've previously been accepted as an expert in architecture before a number of planning and zoning boards. I also serve as a member of the
zoning board in the municipality where I live and I have experience reviewing similar land use applications. >> We offer as an expert in architecture. [clears throat] >> Sure. Yes. >> Thank you very much. Now Christie, now back to you to go through the plans if you would. Sure thing. Uh I have personally uh visited the site and am
familiar with the architectural drawings prepared for the Azora phase 2 development. The architectural plans submitted to the board have been signed and sealed in accordance with applicable New Jersey requirements. Uh the originally uh submitted set was dated March 6th, 2026. And I would also
like to open up uh the first exhibit and mark that A1. You have that handy. >> Yeah. >> But that one is that was the original one. There should be another architectural
plan dated June 10th. >> Well, >> while you're doing that, uh you submitted the five page set as one. So we could just mark that as A1 and just refer to what page you're talking about. >> Yes, we will. We have the entire five pages at 81. And while we're trying to find the updated ones, Christy will just
describe the changes, a lot of it's just technical detail, the overall layouts, things that have not changed with your testimony. >> Sure thing. The revisions are minor and include the following. Uh the first sheet was updated to calculate the final
square footage for each unit type. The original submission was based on scaled plans while the revised version is based on CAD drawings which provide a more accurate calculation. Uh the next the next sheets sheets two
through five uh include additional labeling to clarify the individual renderings and their corresponding unit types. If you want to continue on through that um you can move on to Yeah. So in the in the exhibit these
were cl they were these were clarified to correspond with the plans and then sheets four and five also were modified uh slightly to show the entry insets and the variety of front entry window treatments. you don't have. Okay.
>> Okay. Um I would also like to mark exhibit A2 which I hope that we have [clears throat] that one. That is the finishes. >> So exhibit A2 has not been submitted before. It's the it's a sheet that will show the finishes, the types of materials and colors.
>> Sorry, may I just I'm sorry to interrupt, but can you just specify? You said that the square footages have changed. Can you just say what those changes are because I don't have this, you know, we don't have this in front of us. Sure. >> I would say we Carl, we we'd never look I know you submitted this probably to the township, but since we haven't seen
it, I'd go through what Kate just asked. >> Yes. All the all five pages just specifically what the differences are for each of the pages. >> Yeah, it sounds it sounds like the other ones are more just labels. So, but but any anything for square footage? Let's put let's get that on the record. >> Yeah, if you want to scroll back to A1,
just the first page there. Yeah. So if you if you zoom in on the the text up above that depicts the um square footage calculations for the areas. The only clarification was that um you know unit type in the originally submitted drawing
unit type one in the original originally submitted drawing was noted as 2702. It has been bumped up to 2754. And then uh unit two, the originally submitted square footage was 2564 and
has been uh reduced actually to 2638. >> Okay. And no changes to the affordable. >> Uh no changes to the affordable. >> Okay. That that was my we'll address that later. >> Yeah. And actually let's let's close the loop on that. Kate me >> I I just for the board's comments there was a major comment in my report which
had to do with the square footage of the affordable units which did not comply with the new U-Hack regulations >> which we will get to. Okay. Okay. Just wait. >> So, yeah. Just so in case report they're somehow they got changed from one set of plans to the other. They're about 10
square feet short for the units. We will revise those two-bedroom COA units to have the correct square footage at notice and case report and we will submit revised plans to to detail as well for confirmation. >> Apologies. I wasn't sure if that was included in there. I won't interrupt you anymore.
>> So, you so aboard apologies. We had an issue with saving the plans to the thumb drive to come tonight. The next exhibit that we're going to mark is A2. Um, unfortunately, we're going to try and get email them to um to display them.
I'll pass it out to the board and just to hold it up to the public and see. Yeah, it it'll be coming. So, we continue with testimony. I'll pass around the board. It's essentially a sheet like this that shows the types of finishes and colors. And this will be marked as exhibit A2. again will be on
the screen in a moment. >> I have I have an extra one. >> Okay, that'll continue. Okay, >> so that will be exhibit A2 with tonight's date and we will send copies of the exhibits in PDF form marked to Ireina tomorrow morning. >> Please. Okay, thank you. Um just to to
circle back [clears throat] on the uh on the building layout uh related to the the height, the elevations etc. Uh the phase 2 development consists of 15 buildings containing a total of 65 residential units. The units are arranged in clustered and mirrored
building configurations to create variation in the building footprints and the streetscape. Units one and two are the proposed market rate three-bedroom, 2 and a half bath townhouse units. The ground floor includes an attached
garage, typical living spaces, and an owner suite. The second floor includes two additional bedrooms, a full bathroom, a loft area that can be used as an exercise room or library or whatnot, and storage space. There are no
basements proposed in any units. Uh the market rate townhouse buildings are two stories and approximately 33 feet in height which is below the 40 foot maximum perid permitted by the redevelopment plan. Unit three, if you want to scroll to
unit three there, that's on sheet four. There we go. Unit three is the proposed affordable unit. It is a singlestory, two-bedroom, onebath unit. It includes standard living spaces, a stackable washer dryer, a utility closet, one bathroom, and two bedrooms. The building
height is approximately 20 ft 6 in. The affordable units meet the requirements under the current New Jersey affordable housing rules for unit count, minimum size, and adaptability. The front entries are intentionally staggered and varied to create an
undulating streetscape, and to avoid a repetitive building um appearance. Uh go we don't have that yet. Okay. So going back to the exhibit A2 which is the materials board. Uh the buildings include a mix of highquality exterior materials intended to create attractive
and varied facades. The proposed materials include a masonry base at the front facade fiber cement siding in v in varying profiles metal roofs at first floor bumpouts and accent dormers and asphalt shingles for the main roof
areas. The architectural design includes a series of dormers on the front facades to provide visual interest and to help the buildings relate contextually to nearby structures in Homeell. The windows are proposed as double hung. Exterior lighting includes gooseeneck
gooseeneck fixtures at the garages, recessed lighting at the main entry porches, and coach light fixtures at the rear doors. The proposed fixtures comply with all applicable foot candle minimums and maximums under the redevelopment plan and in the municipal ordinance.
In my professional opinion, the architectural design is consistent with the phase 2 preliminary site plan approval and the applicable architectural require requirements of the redevelopment plan. The proposed number of units, building types, and general architectural arrangement
are is consistent with the preliminary site plan approval. The proposed building heights are below the maximum height permitted by the redevelopment plan. Architectural plans call out for 13 affordable units consistent with the unit count reflected in the preliminary site plan approval.
The proposed building elevations, exterior materials, roof forms, window treatments, lighting, and staggered front entries are intended to comply with the design objectives of the redevelopment plan and to create a coordinated residential development with
architectural variety. From the architect from an architectural standpoint, I'm not aware of any requested variances or design waiverss specifically related to the architectural design except to the extent identified by the applicant's planner, engineer, or attorney.
To the extent any architectural design waiver is identified by board professionals, I'm prepared to address uh the prepared to address the architectural basis for that request. Uh, in response to the board professionals review letters, I have reviewed the letter from Phillips Priest
dated June 15, 2026. Item number 12 notes a requirement that two-bedroom affordable units shall contain a minimum of 850 square feet, while the current proposal shows approximately 840 square ft. The applicant is willing, as a
condition of approval, to modify the plans by extending the full width of the rear of the applicable buildings by approximately 6 in in order to comply with the 850 ft requirement. This modification is architectural in nature and would allow the unit size to
meet the minimum square footage requirements. Any site plan related implications including setbacks um grading, drainage, utilities or impervious coverage shall be addressed by the applicant's engineer or other appropriate professionals.
My testimony tonight is limited to the architectural design of the proposed buildings, including the layout, unit configuration, height, elevation, exterior materials, finishes, windows, lighting, and architectural compliance with the redevelopment plan. I'm not providing any testimony related to
engineering, traffic, drainage, surveying, environmental issues, or formal planning or variance proofs. Those should be addressed by the applicant's other professionals. In conclusion, it is my professional opinion that the proposed architectural design for Azora phase 2 is consistent
with the preliminary site plan approval, complies with the applicable architectural requirements of the redevelopment plan, and is appropriate for the proposed residential development. I am available to answer any questions that the board may have regarding the architectural design.
>> And Christie, one quick followup question. The uh mentioned the offset of the buildings. It's the four feet that's required by the plan. That was a question posed by the board um engineer. Is that correct? >> Yes, that's correct. >> We have no further testimony from the architect. She's available for questions
from the board and public. >> Uh Craig and Kate. >> Sure. So, just I don't I don't think I have any questions. I think everything's been answered. I would just note that um you know the the the increasing the square footage of the affordable housing. Glad they're going to do that.
I think that any change to impervious or anything like that will obviously have to be shown on the plans. I think it'll be in very very negligible and you know they're not going and they're already massively decreasing the impervious but they will have to show that on the revised engineering plans. Um but yeah and you know just just just so the board
knows that's a standard set by the state for all for sale affordable housing buildings. So I'm glad that they are meeting that. Um I requested that the applicant provide you know testimony about building materials. They provided that as well as the exhibit. So I I don't think I have anything else for this witness.
>> Okay. >> So I agree with Kate um uh with the extension of the buildings. it's not going to affect uh have ne negligible effect on the stormwater infrastructure that's being proposed or any of the grading uh that can be easily addressed
with the updated site plan. The one comment I did want to add is uh the building height. Um I think the architect um testified about the building height. We just need to make sure that we the it
gets the site engineer looks at it too because there's it's a building height plus the distance to the grade plane. So it's a little bit higher but there's enough height uh between what was testified to and the permitted that this shouldn't be an issue.
>> Yes. And we'll have the engineer specify that for you as well. >> Thank you. So, there's nothing that's being proposed that's non-conforming at this point, right? Everything's going to be meeting all minimum requirements by the state.
That's what they've testified to and they will will obviously review that again if this were to be approved as part of resolution compliance and also, you know, it all has to it's all part of our affordable housing plan in the township. So, there's another level of eyes on it as well. >> Right. Okay. Um, anyone on the board
have a question for this witness? Go ahead, Wes. >> Hi. >> Hi. >> I'm not sure all these questions are for you, so you can defer if it's not. Is there a homeowners association associated with these units?
>> So, there will be eventually a condominium created uh but not at this point. >> So, you anticipate that this would be covered under some type of homeowners association. Is that for the entire project or is that only associated with phase two?
>> The the well once you create a condo on the property affects the whole property. So yes, this phase two will be its own condominium association. >> Phase two will be its own condominium association. >> Correct. >> Separate and apart from phase one. Is that what you mean? >> Correct. Yes. >> Oh, really?
>> There will be without getting into detail, there'll be kind of an umbrella homeowners association that will make sure the individual phases everything coordinates. Uh, and then each phase will have its own homeowners association. There's it's it's frequently done. There's actually a large project up in Somerset County that
has god it's a long time since I've been up there has like 12 homeowners association on the property. So they they do have these umbrella ones to coordinate. But yes, there will be >> the individual units in each case. Even if it's a twostory, the same owner owns
the bottom and the top, right? So then that ownership goes out the front door and the back door. Does each property have its own little front yard and backyard? >> Yes, that's correct. >> I visited um the open house on phase one and they have units downstairs and
upstairs and um they typically enter through a common corridor in the main building, phase one I'm talking about. And then the question came up, if I'm in phase one and I'm on downstairs, can I let my dog out in the backyard and
can I build a fence? And I'm not sure anybody was really sure about that because the question was, can I just come enter the my unit on my first floor through the back door? >> Um, and I think the answer was pretty much no because they want you to come
through the main entry. I guess my question is again ownership extends the front yard and the backyard. How is it decided what people can you do with fences for example? >> Um I don't know. Sorry. I don't know if
the condominium documents have been prepared yet to determine that as to exactly where the the individual property will end and the common elements will start, but that'll be dictated through those. But again, in response to your larger question, these
are kind of like a townhouse setup as opposed to the rehabilitation of the office building. So it is kind of like you're saying, you would walk in your front door from your street or driveway and you would have a quote back door out the back of the the building. Yes. And you would have the first and second floor.
>> This phase two is not age restricted. Is that right? >> Yes. The entire project, the entire age restricted restricted. And that means that it's 55 and up. Is that what it is? >> Yeah, I think it's 55 and up. Yes. 55 and older. >> And um
in terms of owners versus rentals and someone could buy a unit and rent it out. Is that right? >> Unless they limit that in the condominium documents. And again, they're not been prepared to my knowledge or any limit on that. But these are these are in built and being
sold as individual owned units and not rentals. >> Thank you. like like an apartment. It's not that. It's it's an ownership structure. >> Thank you. >> You're welcome. >> I have one question just so I I see I see on the plans the market rate units
have a garage and a driveway. The affordable components are are there parking spaces in front of the buildings? I didn't maybe I missed it on the the plan. Where what's the parking situation for the affordable? >> Sure. They they do not have garages, dedicated garages, but the civil engineer will testify to where their
parking spaces are. >> Okay. >> Okay. Um, did I ask uh did I All right. So, questions on this witness yet? >> All right. So, at this time, if there's anyone from the public that has a question of this witness?
If not, okay. Uh, thank you. Um, you want to call your next witness? >> Do you want me to walk through the materials at all? >> Okay. Okay. Uh yes, thank you very much. >> Our next witness will be our engineer. [snorts]
>> Is that Gary? Oh, >> sorry. about to give us the truth. >> I do. >> My name is Mark Zelina. It's Mark with a K and the last name is Zel I N A.
I've appeared before this board previously as with this application during the initial phases. I'm still a licensed professional engineer in the state of New Jersey. My license remains in good standing. >> We offer Mr. Zelina as an expert in engineering. >> Okay.
>> Thank you. And Mark, I'll just turn over you to go through the site plans for phase two. [snorts] >> [clears throat] >> I'm sorry. I just want to get the rendering straight. There it is. >> This will be marked as exhibit A3. Um, it's a color rendering of the site plan which was not previously submitted, but the base site plan uh is in the
application package. I'll have Mark describe further, but this will be exhibit A3. And again, I will provide with copies tomorrow morning. [snorts] the previous one. All right, go back. Okay, as we um as Carl just mentioned, this exhibit marked the project
rendering final site plan phase two Azor Reserve. what we've highlighted on phase two or I should say phase two is outlined by a red line um it encircles uh the entire phase two project the rest of the
project that was approved under phase one is shaded out by the uh white shading in effect the uh the existing building and all the proposed improvements under phase one are shown for its relationship to phase two and phase two you see is in the in the
brighter colors as the site exists today the part of of phase two it's about 12 acres in area it's entirely a parking lot at this point the parking lot services existing building of that there's about 9.6 six acres of pavement
and just a little over two acres of landscaping within the uh islands and the the perimeter of the lands of the uh parking lot itself. Access to the existing um parking lot, there were three existing driveways all emanating
from the existing ring road. The ring road is exists today and will remain throughout the uh throughout the project. the proposal for for this project, the 65 senior living town homes, which were already alluded to, 52
market rate units, and 13 affordable housing units. On this plan, the 13 affordable housing units are located at the northern end of the of the project site. Uh it's being circled right now. They're just a little bit darker in
color there at at the um where they're just shown. if you want to just um zoom in on those a little bit right now. There was a question about the uh access or the garages for I'm having a hard time maneuvering through this. Let's
see. I was jumping ahead a little bit just to answer the question that was posed about the uh garages or driveways for the affordable units. There is a single driveway uh pro owner owner's driveway provided for each of the individual uh
affordable units. It it looks as if there were a garage there. The driveway runs right up to the u unit itself. And then in addition to that, there are additional off- streetet parking spaces provided along the driveway for
additional um residents and and guests. I go back to the u the town homes themselves. Each of the town homes have two-car garages along with a twocar driveway. There's additional 27 guest parking spaces which is in accordance with the
ordinance and the residential site improvement standards. In addition to the units themselves or the parking provided by the driveways and the garages, the requirement is to provide one half a unit one half of parking space for each unit. So for the 54 52
units, 26 additional parking spaces are required. There are 27 guest parking spaces provided within that area. There are six handicap accessible spaces provided for and currently there are two electric vehicle charging spots shown on
that plan. Five are required. We will add the additional three as as as part of the revisions to the plan. Um of those electric u vehicle charging spots 5% of those must be for handicap accessible spaces which is a requirement
of one space. Going back to the affordable units, there are the 17 additional off- streetet parking spaces for a total of 30 parking spaces. Um, one handicap accessible parking space. The plants currently show eight electric vehicles charging spots where five are
required. So, the three additional uh EV spaces that we show there will be relocated to the uh the market rate unit area. There are mailbox gang mailboxes provided within the site plan itself. Two are shown
within the market rate area and one shown within the affordable housing area. We've also provided for one striped parking space um in front of each of those part um mailbox units so that the uh mail can be dropped off and or picked up. So if someone wants to
drive from the unit to pick up the mail, there is there's a spot available for them rather than stopping in the driveway. The driveways themselves are 24 feet wide. Um throughout the development, there are three access points from the ring road uh with the interior driveway
as well as one connection to the uh interior driveways for the phase one which is just north of the existing building. Um, want to note that there was some comments from the the engineer that the ordinance requirement is for 25 ft, but
the residential site improvement standards permit a width of 24 ft, which is what um the plan was designed around. Storm water be collected by new inlets and piping um located along the uh access roads as well as behind and
throughout behind the units and around the units. All the roof leaders will be attached to the underground uh storm water system. We won't have any wash outs at the base of the the roof leaders or anything like that. And then um storm water will be reduced just by virtue of
the reduction of the impervious coverage on the site. There's there's approximately 36% reduction in impervious coverage throughout the phase 2 area which was the 12 acres. Um so the reduction from 9.6 six to 6.1 acres and impervious coverage will
provide for the required or necessary reduction in storm water runoff from the site. Water manes will be provided throughout the throughout the um development. Each unit will be serviced by individual laterals from the water manes. Water's provided to the entire site from
existing mains along Homeell Road and Main Street. They'll be brought into the development uh during the course of phase one. They'll be extended through the phase two development uh during development of this phase of work. Similarly, this sanitary sewer each unit
will be provided uh connected to the san gravity sanitary sewer main. They'll be constructed within the the proposed roadways of this development. The the gravity main will be extended to the existing pump station uh outside of uh
the building northwest corner of the building. And then from there it'll be treated in accordance with the agreements that were made during the prior application as far as how how the sanitary sewers is going to be treated. The main thing for me to reiterate is that
at no time will the existing on-site treatment plant in Lagoon be used for treatment and disposal of any sewage generated by the development. There's a main pumping station being developed along uh home road. It's in the course of development. If the construction of
the units precede that, the the sewage will be gathered into storage tanks and collected by licensed haulers and hauled to a treatment facility. I'm sorry. Um just briefly, landscaping uh landscaping plans were provided for a
variety of plantings throughout the proposed development, a variety of shade, ornamental and evergreen trees, as well as a robust foundation planting scheme around each of the each of the units, each building. We had provided a a tree location, woodland retention and
preservation plan. It's included the in the plans that were submitted and had a list of all the trees that were being removed. uh the diameters. We calculated the the the total diameter of the trees that were being removed and we're providing for adequate replacement of
those trees um by virtue of the landscape plants. So there there are probably more trees in the development than nor might you might normally see, but we made sure that we accounted for all the trees that were being removed. even though they're not natural and were part of the uh the parking lot
plantings, we are we'll have a quite robust uh landscaping plan when we're all said and done. Um the other thing to touch upon, there's lighting. There's two types of lighting fixtures proposed for the site. Throughout the residential
development itself, there are 32 12 foot high polemounted decorative lantern LED fixtures. They're basically the lantern style fixtures that you they're very common within the town home uh developments and and and residential
development. Uh there's portions of the ring road that do not have lights pre currently. We're including 13 new 24 foot high polemounted light. They're flat top LED light fixtures and those are along portions of the ring road that do not
currently have light fixtures to make sure that the walking trail and the that the the ring road has adequate lighting. And then finally, there's signage. We have three vehicular directional signs proposed at the new intersections with the ring road. Those are basic basically
directional signs. Uh they're there's six foot high and three foot wide that provide kind of like a wayfinding sign that tell tells someone driving around the ring road where how to maneuver through the site. And then we have one project or phase identification side
site I'm sorry sign at the southernmost entrance to the development. It's a 5 foot high and 10 foot wide internally illuminated monument sign that identifies the project site as you enter off as you come from the main entrance off of Main Street.
That in a nutshell is what this development is all about. It's gone. It's very consistent with the preliminary approval that was granted for the project and consistent with all the other um the redevelopment agreement and uh redevelopment plan as well. And Mark, you've received, we'll start with
the reports, the report from the board planner, January, June 15, 2026. And the extent there's engineering comments, we can agree to comply with those in the planner report. >> Yes. And then you've received the board engineers report of June 15, 2026. And
except as you provided in testimony, we can pro uh comply with the requested revisions and conditions in there. >> Yeah, that yes, I I agree with that. I think I touched upon a few of the topics that uh Craig and I had discussed that that he wanted to bring to the attention of the board, but I'm happy to address
any other comments that Craig you feel is applicable at this time. But generally all the technical or technical comments we we we agreed to take care of as a condition of any approval or any action on this project. >> And then we also received the report of June 16th from the township engineer on
the wastewater treatment. and um we've had discussions uh with him as well and we agree to comply with all the conditions at the time CO was issued um and return to the board once there is a final design for the uh force main uh
location on the property and connecting all the units to the force main location on Homedale Road. Is that correct? >> That is correct and that's my understanding. Yes. >> Yes. So um the re we also received the report the interdep departmental reports. There was
a comment from the police department. Um and those comments are being addressed with the county regarding the crosswalk and things of that nature. And we have a upcoming meeting with the county to discuss and finalize those. Is that correct? >> Yeah, that is correct. Just, you know, for clarification, you know, that that
comment requesting a midb block crosswalk from the the project site to the AC across Homedale Road to some of the businesses there was made during the initial application. We've been in contact with the county throughout the course of this this this project trying
to coordinate a meeting between your township traffic safety officer and the county officials themselves. We finally got an an offer yesterday for a meeting this week to to to have that discussion. However, the traffic safety officer is not available for that meeting and we'll
have to schedule that over the course of the next couple of weeks at which time we'll address work with everyone to address that those comments or that request >> and in and in short those are the similar comments that we had when we were here for phase one and delivery one. >> So again, that's more or less a continuing condition. We agree to
address those. We'll work with the county to the extent the county needs to give relief. We will, you know, make the request for relief in conjunction with the township to accommodate those uh comments in his report. That is correct. The county is amendable to those. They
will require some action from the uh the township or request by the the township specifically for the the speed limit reduction on Homedale Road and also the crossing. We will coordinate those meetings and make sure that that action progresses to the extent that both the
county and everyone the homeale officials are satisfied. Thank you. Um that's the extent of our engineering testimony available for questions and comments from the board and public. >> Before the another questions answer, let me answer Mr. Fagan as it results the
the question about the ownership of the property. These are not fee simple lots. There is no ownership of the land associated with these units. It's condominium form of ownership. So basically the owners own within the walls of the building and all the property outside the building is common
element which is owned and maintained by the association itself. So to the extent of fences or anything else like that, that would have to be an action or covered under the bylaws of the association which we don't not privy to or don't they're not in place at this
time. But there is no I just wanted to s answer your question earlier since I wasn't here is that there is no property ownership associated with these units. There there's not fe simple which is that kind of ownership just the ownership within the units themselves.
Kate and Craig. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, so I just wanted to touch on a couple of things. Uh, the planning and zoning section of my uh, report. Um, I had listed a couple of possible variances. First one related
to the 25 foot wide driveway or or roadway driveway that's required by the ordinance and I agree with Mrs. Lena's testimony that that would be it's governed by RSIs which allows the 24. So that's not a variance. Uh the other item
uh relates to the um distance of the parking next to the building. Uh and this is related to the area of the affordables. Um I was not focusing on the actual driveway for the affordable, but some of the um adjacent visitor
parking was within within that 20 foot. It was it was close to 20 foot, but uh it was not it did not meet that 20 foot requirement. And Mr. Herman and I did speak about this earlier today. He is correct. We are short shy of the 20 feet. In a couple of instances where the guest
parking spaces are short of the 20 foot dimension, we will adjust those so that we are not requesting any variances, but we'll in fact adjust our site plan so that it is in accordance with the requirement and we'll dimension them accordingly. I know Craig noted that there were some dimensions or we could add possibly more dimensions throughout
the site plan and we agreed to do that as well. Uh and as far as storm water management um they are a major development which means they need to meet the groundwater recharge water quantity water qu water water quantity water quality requirements. They do that in this
application via the removal of the pavement. Uh one of the ways you can show that you meet the quantity is that at all times there is no point in time when the proposed rain is greater than the existing rain. They show that by
comparing the hydrographs. Um the I requested the NGDP recharge spreadsheet be prepared which by virtue of reducing the impervious cover that should come up. It's going to be a positive recharge. Um and a water quality they don't need to provide because you only need to provide water quality for any
new motor vehicle motor vehicle surfaces since the motor vehicle surfaces are being reduced. You don't need to provide any water quality treatment for that area. And the last item is I just wanted to clarify my comment related to the
sanitary sewer. Um I mentioned that they didn't show the proposed force main schematic on the plan and that's they didn't show it on the phase 2 utility plan. on the overall utility plans. They
did show schematically uh the plan that was in the uh revised or amended redevelopment plan with the forest main and the connection to that. >> But in short, uh everything is conforming, right? >> That's correct.
>> Okay. >> I just I just have a question about um well, first I thank you, Mr. Dell. I think you answered most of the comments in my letter that related to landscaping including or excuse me not landscaping related to engineering including you know stuff about the parking
calculations etc. Um Craig already covered the the height calculation which you know just just make a note on the plan indicating that you know how that was measured but again I think the height is shown at 33 feet um on the architectural plans and and 40 feet is
permitted. So they definitely have room. We just need to know the exact height measured in accordance with the ordinance definition. >> Just for clarification, if I may, there are no basements here. The existing grade or the proposed grade around these units are typically 8 to 8 in to 1 foot below the finished floor. So we're not
going to come close to the foot maximum. So we're going to >> most likely be less than 35 ft at the end of the day. >> There you go. Great. Perfect. >> And and we'll make sure that's reflected on the revised plans. >> Excellent. Okay. Thanks. Um, and then my only other comment is on the sign. So,
the monument sign, can you just show where that's proposed on this plan? >> I most definitely can >> one of these days. >> Yeah. I apologize. The the batteries on the wireless mouse died, so it's a little hard. >> Oh, I know. Don't even get started. >> The [laughter] ring road is shown along
in in the darker gray there. And as you approach the first driveway into the development, there's a it says M2 monument sign. See the detail on the sheet. So right at that location is the monument sign that identifies this portion of the project. >> Okay. >> As
>> so so the the the um the redevelopment plan does not have specific signage requirements. It gives difference to to the planning board, the township planner who issued a letter, Kendra Lily, stating that everything is in compliance. it conforms to the redevelopment plan and the redevelopment
agreement. I just, you know, when I saw that the sign, you know, I think the question is when I saw that it was going to be internally illuminated, I just had a couple questions about that. And so it looks like it's not going to be visible from Homeell Road. >> Not at all. >> Okay. >> Since you know,
>> I I think it's just more, you know, if it's even though it's technically permitted, you know, what's the rationale for internally illuminated, it's not going to be like like is it going to be like channel like what are we talking about here? I guess do we I mean I I know we probably haven't designed it yet. So [laughter] >> no the idea that like the sign would be
solid and and then the the letters uh within the sign would be illuminated at night so that it's readable dur during the night time. It's not going to be a bright >> right signs just more for wayinding or coming onto the site. Here's the Azora reserve project you know to
differentiate it from some the rest of the pro you know portions of the project. >> Okay. I think I would just, you know, I I I think I think what you're proposing is fine. It's not really going to be visible, but I would just, you know, add that because we don't have the final design, we just want to see that as a condition of approval. I think
>> we have no objection with that. Okay. Right. >> I'm sorry. I'm sorry. You're right. I'm sorry. You're right. It is. It is. I We were talking about Homedale Road before. Yes. Home Main Street was what I meant. And yes, you know, it's tough. And then also that that there is the the buffer
of the township owned property there. Um okay. You know just just we just like to double check internal illumination in home. That's what we're here for. >> So that's fine with me. Okay. >> Okay. Uh anyone on the board? >> Yes. I want to I want to go I want to
backtrack to um the charging stations. >> Yes. >> You said there were five charging stations in all. Correct. >> No. There there would be five within the market rate unit section and five within the affordable housing section. >> Oh, so there'll be 10 charging station
>> all together. Yes. >> Okay. >> And each of those would also provide for a handicap accessible space has to be a part of that as well. So we're going to be fully compliant with the state rules and regulations. >> Okay. is I just wanted to prevent a future domino effect because as people buy electric cars, especially in the
affordable housing area, they won't have the luxury of being able to put the electrical chargers in their garage like a lot of residents do where the other um quad so to say um would be able to adjust their garages.
>> That's a point which I omitted, right? the all the individual homeowners within the uh market still have the ability to put their chargers in the garage, >> right? And I just don't want any problems between residents because somebody's monopolizing, etc. I want to
make sure that on a planning stage that there's enough for future residents and the domino effect as people purchase more of those type of cars. Yeah, I would I would also note that um you know maybe confirm this, but you know we talk about I think one of the reasons we're
talking about these almost like the market rate component and the affordable housing component when it comes to parking one one reason obviously they're like they're in the same general vicinity but but for the parking calculation since they're different bedrooms different number of bedrooms the parking ratio is different but you know one of the redevelopment plan
standards is that you know the basically this will be shared area so the residents of the affordable housing would be able to use the visitor electric charging. >> You can there are condo police. >> Yeah, that that's correct. So, so it's an the entire phase, as as Kate
indicated, we've been talking about this is the market rate, this is the affordable, but it's one phase. So, even if somebody in the market rate or somebody in the affordable rate needs to charge, they can drive to the other side. Would >> that be in your bylaws that it's a shared? >> Yeah, those are those are all I would
want that in the bylaws. I agree. I believe it's also it's it doesn't specifically reference um electric vehicle charging, but the redevelopment plan and the redevelopment agreement and the affordable housing agreement are all very specific as are the state law that you know they are not to be isolated
developments of this type. >> So for example, if you look at the plan, >> make that a point. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I was just saying I'm not sure that's within our purview to make that a requirement of the HOA. It it it is because it's state affordable housing
law. So that's and so but so it's >> but whatever's in the law they have to comply with. I'm saying we just can't >> go above and beyond what the law requires. >> So let me just just address your comments. If you look for example on the strip that's A9 through A13
those are market rate. They have their own driveways. Across the street so to speak is a strip of parking spaces. Now, those don't have EVs, but the point I'm trying to make is those are open and there's a number of those throughout the areas and those where the EV chargers are. So, the fact that this is a market
rate person, the EV across the street from them be taken, they can drive up to the northern end where there's more of the affordable units and plug in there and vice versa, they could an affordable person could drive southerntherly in the project and find one of those visitor parking areas and plug into those as
well. So, it's an open it's open within the phase. Everyone can go everywhere. We've just like said been detailing on market rate because there's certain things we have to make sure we we provide to comply with U-Hack regulations and your affordable housing requirement that was imposed by the
courts and we we will make sure that's all taken care of is the bottom line. I just wanted to illustrate that for you. Thank you, >> Mr. Cam. Also, so just to clarify, one through five our market rate A9 through A13 are affordable, but I think that that Yes. But that that Yeah. No, that's
okay. But I mean, you know, they're basically equidistant from there. >> Um, and I would also, you know, to go back to Wes's question earlier, Mr. Fagen's question about the fencing. There is an optional patio that would be that would be part of the ownership if someone were to choose that or to be determined. >> Yes, that is correct. You must have an
optional sun room as well as an optional patio. And we provided, just for the record, we provided for that impervious coverage within our drainage calculation. should 100% of those units require all of those amenities. It's it's provided for. We've gotten stuck with that in the past and we don't want
that to be a problem moving down the road. >> Okay. >> And this is my last question. I don't think it's necessarily directly for you, Mark, but just to confirm that all residents of both the market rate and the affordable housing areas here will have access to all of the same sitewide amenities because there are no spec or
anything associated with this part of the development, but there is, you know, the recreation sites that are will be throughout the site which every does everyone have access to those? >> Yes. >> Okay. Making sure. Thank you. >> But the whole site's wired. So like if the ownership decides the condo wants to
add more EV spaces later, they can always do that later. >> Absolutely. >> Right. So if there's a need for it, the association will take care of that. >> We can't see what the need for these electric vehicles are going to be in the future and that will definitely become a condominium association issue as time goes on. >> Any other association would have to deal
with, right? Okay. >> All right. Um go ahead, Wes. I I don't want to beat the electric vehicle to death, but as I recall, phase one, there were no electric vehicles allowed in the covered portion.
>> That is correct. In the garage portion that we had that discussion with the the fire official in town, and they are >> expressly prohibited at this time until the technology changes or something like that. >> But these owners, not only will they put their electric vehicle in the garage,
but they'll have their charger potentially in the garage. That is correct. No restrictions there. >> That's correct. >> Did I hear you say that the um would be the gutter leaders and the gutters are connected to the storm water system?
They they're not >> um emptying out onto the lawn being completely storm waters off the roofs are being completely removed from the property via the underground storm water system. >> Yes. It's a big maintenance issue with these
town home developments that the splash blocks and the erosion from the roofs. >> I I was going to ask further about the sign. I thought that the sign would have been something like whatever the names are, phase one over here, phase two over here, three. But
that's not the case. You're talking about a sign only identifying this phase two just as phase two. Is that what the sign is for? not directing someone, just saying that they're in the right place. >> Now, there are three additional signs
at, let's say, if you were to go out each road, road A, B, or C, out to the ring road on the opposite side of the street, there's a I'm going to call it a directional sign on it in our on our plans, it shows if you wanted to go to this development or the home road or
whatever, it's there's a whole series of placards that will help you find your way through the site. So at each uh intersection of the interior driveways out to the ring road, we're providing for one of those call it wayfinding signs. So help you
>> what we're referring to as phase two. Are you assigning a name to that? >> Yes. >> I forget what Oh, it's called Azora Reserve. So the overall project is Azora at Homeell. This portion is known as will be known as Azora Reserve. And so
phase one would have a different name. Azora >> that's going to be called Azora residence. I believe phase one is going to be called. I don't think we've given names to each phase. We're kind of figure them out as we go. But that those are those two. And again the wayfinding signs will say if you want to go to
Azora Reserve, take a left or reserve residents take a right. And that way people can find their way around. And then the monument sign when they get there they'll know they're at the right place as they're coming into the development. We've been talking about mostly entry off 520. There's an there's
an entry off Homedale Road, right? And that's completely open, right? That's not gate. Neither one. None of this is gated. >> It is not gated. Correct. There's a there are main entrances on off Homedale Road access, you know, the entire site. Everything goes directly to the ring road, which provides a complete loop
around phases one, two, and what will eventually be phase four. But that's not depicted on these plans as of this time. >> Okay. Finally, um, regarding the actual staging of construction, one would assume that phase one gets
done before phase two, but I guess that may not be the case at all. >> That may not be the case. Correct. They may be built at the same time. We're not >> It could be two finished before one. >> It's possible. >> So, there's no limits that you're
putting on yourself and we're not putting any limits on anything. Is that right? there. So they can finish phase two before phase one is finished is what they're saying. >> Unless there's anything I don't read agreement to the contrary from the
town's perspective, we just want to make sure that they affordable housing units and everything. Um, but I don't I don't I would defer back to the red. >> I I think the only thing was phase four can't start until we figure out the flow
after the third phase is complete, right? If I remember >> that actually gets a little bit changed because we'll have the force main because that was an issue with do we have capacity in in the wastewater treatment facility which is kind of off the table. Um, my client just reminded me that uh in response to your question, Mr. Fagen, we do have to have a certain
number of units ready for CO in phase one before we can get COs for phase two. So construction and CO may be a little different on scheduling, but again before we can get a CO and anyone moves in in phase one, phase two rather, we have to have I
think 11 COS issued for phase one. So there will be kind of close in construction those two. >> And that that is that is considered contemplated in the redevelopment. That's the redevelopment agreement. But again, I just want to make sure we're clearly explaining it to the board members >> just so they can know where to look if
they want to see that. >> Sure. >> And the other important thing to consider is there are affordable units in each and every phase. So there's 20% set aside in phase two just as there are in phase one, three, and four as well. So they they're almost independent as it
relates to that to make sure that the township satisfies its affordable housing obligation with the state. >> Right. That's what I was referencing because um under under state law, state regulations, you you have to have cos for a certain
you can't get cos for your market rate units until a certain threshold of affordable is >> yeah that's all in the state regulations. Yes. And obviously those comply those apply and we will comply with those.
>> Thank you. Okay, just two questions. Let's see if this works. Um, I think Kate mentioned that there all the residents will have access to the amenities of the of the site. Will there be the I see sidewalks, but
is there sidewalk paths to the main condo building where that pool area is going to be? Like, is it clearly visible where they're going to be walking to get to the to that main area? In terms of access, if if you recall, there is a six foot wide walking trail
around the entire perimeter of the ring of the interior of the ring road >> outside >> on the inside loop of the ring road and then a six foot bicycle lane adjacent to that. And you'll see that throughout this particular phase of the
development, sidewalks on both sides of the interior roadways connect to that as well and then also are interconnected into the phase one area of this of the site >> referring to the phase one so they can get to the common area. >> Yes. >> Yes. And there are certain amenities
that are open to everybody and then there are other amenities I believe inside the building that are like a club membership or something that anyone can participate in. But I believe those will some of those will be membership or fee based. Um it's
>> membership. >> Yes. Yes. >> Yeah. It's kind of hard to see on the plan that's up there, but for example, that's kind of right in the middle of the screen. Direct access
building. The other question was talking system that's collected. Where does that go? It's going into the existing piping system that discharges to the the brook or to Yeah, there's
>> Okay. Um, at this time I'll open it to public questions if you want to just come on up. >> Oh, I'm sorry, Fran. Yeah, >> sure. Sure. Does he need to be sworn in? >> I do.
>> I know that there's been a certain amount of information. Do you have any issues with anything in the letter? >> We do not. No. Um there are you know a citation of the conditions of the of the prior approval that there relate to the
uh sanitary sewer collection and treatment systems which we continue to abide we will abide by and then there are another another com series of comments related to technical u issues related to the plan that we'll be happy to provide for your for your review and approval. >> I would like to just ask for a few
points of clarification. So you indicate you know there are eight previously specified conditions of prior approvals. So condition, there's eight of them. You're here tonight. You've already touched on your
direct testimony that they're all clear. The applicant is still committed to fully comp. >> Absolutely. >> That that's correct. We and and just to make it very clear, we understand and certainly would ask uh the board attorney to clarify it in in the
resolution for this approval. Should the board grant approval, we completely understand that those conditions that you cite in your report apply to the entire property. No matter if it's is this phase, phase one, two, three, four, those all apply. Um and as I know you
want to get to further but as discussed all the comments that you have starting at the bottom of page three through the end of your report we will provide those prior to any co being issued and again once the full development of the um this force main's done. I know your office is
involved along with beayshore and and the county and DP. We will come back with a site plan amendment showing the connection to the force main the decommissioning of the existing wastewater treatment facility. All that will be provided in a site plan once it's fully designed and everyone's
everyone involved signs off on it. So we agree to that as a kind of a blanket condition so to speak just to make it very clear for the board the public and and then of course Fran I know you have more detailed questions might want to address that from a high level. We absolutely understand that that was always the intent. Uh again, let's
reiterate it in the on the record and reiterate it in the resolution so there's no no ambiguity there. So thank you again and again Fran, thank you again for taking the time that we bugged Fran a number of times over the past couple days. He's been very generous to give us his time to talk through and
understand these issues. But I want to turn it back over to I know you have some of the detailed questions. That's a very encouraging assertion by developer stills. I just want to point out one thing your
description was excellent. I would suggest that I don't know before any issuest in our letter I think it's more competite so you're eligible for building permits
would not wait until So, yeah. So, we could talk about that a second, Fran, and I don't mean to be rude and push back on it. the the the reason why and we can change the trigger is that >> please what I'm suggesting items like
four 5 6 7 8 9 10 >> understood understood the engineer should rece this go forward as a condition of plan resolution compiance because they're not items that would wait until really set the stage
>> understood. Yes. So those items you mentioned we agree as within phase two we will provide all those details a lot of the other ones. So for example you know the final full calculation of flow needed we have to have full design to figure that out. You know the exact connection point. Yeah, we understand
each other on that one and and we'll make sure that we all communicate that to Marty to make sure it's clear in the resolution. But yes, agree with that point. Thank you for taking the time to clarify. >> So, we'll start pretty much at the back of the letter. So, the only
feedback on those number [clears throat] and schedule prepared by the project engineer for only the sewer infrastructure components we com
the sewer will be modified sewer infrastructure will be modified per phase to support the units in each phase according. Is that accurate? >> Yes. >> And that satisfies 13. Number 11. An
engineers report is expected detailing the temporary sanitary sewer disposal plan. Basically to accommodate the sewer flow for each phase as they go to construction. They start to get occupied as
phase one and so on. Can we expect are you committed to providing an engineers report that will describe the sequence scope and limits of the sewer improvements on a phase basis? >> Absolutely. Including the projections
based on the D. >> Okay. So now we're going to jump back. I'm sorry. I just wanted to point out the board and everybody reading this anytime now or in the future that the the uh we list the phases on page and
then that we say overall development is projected to generate the following sewer flows. I want you projected flows on gallons per day per phase that were provided by your office or the application documents. These are
not TNM calculations TNM associates that is this is information that we glean from your application and it's simply to just remind the board each time we review a phase what the design flow
calculations by the project engineer Mr. or someone associated with the project on the design side, the applicant side are presenting to the board the sewer flow expected from each phase. This is not a TNM calculation. I just want to
point that out because I wouldn't expect these flows, these projected flows to change from the review of phase one, two, three, and four. these flows should really be consistent every time uh the applica the applications come before the board and then I just want to point out
so so is that accurate is that correct >> yes and those are based on published flows >> that the D provides for us we're not pulling those out of thin air or projecting something based on our experience >> totally agree and I totally accept the calculations and the flows being
presented I have no question about them I have no contest with these flows they're not too much too little I think they're consistent with what your prior information has been on on previous hearings. But I also want to point out that the cumulative total, the combined
total at the bottom of the column of numbers is 45,760 gallons per day. Now, there was a comment just a few minutes ago that, well, we don't have a cap on the flow because there's a new sewer solution.
I'm not sure that that is uh accurate. I think there was a com mutual commitment between the applicant and the township for the sewer solution, the ultimate sewer solution in the form of a new pump station with a new force main dedicated
for only this property and the force main will be extended to connect to the uh BRSA sewer uh system. >> Yes. >> But that didn't translate for me and I I will research this. I don't know the the
the formal answer tonight. I will I will double check it, but I believe that there was 45,000 gallons per day maximum expected flow from the full buildout of the project. And one of our comments was simply to ask about that. Do you still
intend to use actual flows that get metered in like phase two, three or four so you can determine if you are gen your project is generating less real actual flow than what the D uh unit calculations are so that you can stay
under 45,000 and still service all the density and all the units that were approved for the property. >> Totally understand what you're saying, Fran. Um, Sue, I don't have the exact language in front of me. It's in here somewhere. What because again, once we
shifted from the on-site wastewater treatment facility to the force main solution, some of the things changed and I think we haven't figured out the way to word it properly. But let's start from concept to make sure we understand each other and we'll get down to the granular. The agreement was that
whatever the flow is needed for the D calculations for the entire buildout of the entire project would be accommodated in the force main. The discussion and the possibility of reducing the total flow needed for the site based upon
actual usage was more in regard to the original proposal of using the wastewater treatment facility because that had a cap of 45 even and we would have gone over that. So, we were hoping to be able to build all four phases if we had actual usage and then determined
that the wastewater treatment facility could handle full buildout and that that's was the conversation around actual flow usage once we had development and we had a year's worth to look at. But again the way the language and it is kind of broadly written but it
way the language for the force main final solution again we abandon the wastewater treatment facility is that whatever is needed for the project the force main will handle. So again my understanding is we're going to base it upon the D projections that we calculated that you reiterated in your
report and that's how the force man would be sized. We can work out those details later but conceptually that's my understanding. >> Okay. Okay. So, let me just point out to the board then uh we aren't going to work out any uh of these issues, meaning me directly, that's to be resolved with
the board attorney and their attorney if that is a suitable uh working through this uncertainty that I bring up. It's uncertain to me. It may be very certain to all the other parties that are uh the authors of the agreement, the the uh
sewer solution. But I I appreciate uh what you just said. I have no contest, no push back on that. But then I just want to point out that the total uh cumulative total of 45,760 gallons per day uh for the engineer that
that would that's based on the uh flows per phase and those are based on the uh standard D unit uh unit flows, right? flow per dwelling unit, bedroom or whatever the fixture count, that kind of thing. >> That's correct.
>> Okay. So, that is 45,760 is the ultimate total sewer flow generated by all the units. If they all get built, they're fully occupied. That's the maximum flow that you're projecting it'll be designed for because that coincides with the D
formula. >> Correct. And and our understanding is that's what D is because again D will sign off on the final design of the force main >> and D is going to look at that number to make sure the force main is carrying that amount of services project otherwise I don't think they're going to
give us the permits to build but again D will decide that as indicated there's a number of shareholders involved including uh beayore regional they have to review and weigh in on it. So again, the the the language in the redevelopment agreement as well that was
amended to address this has the same general language which is whatever is needed for the project is what the force man will carry and not more because again the concern was we don't want to have too much capacity in that. So it was again we're all assuming it's going to be the bandwidth and what D tells us
to design to and that's what we'll have to have the force main accommodate and nothing more. And I apologize because I just want to be clear about this so that no board member picks this up a week from now and says, "Well, Fran Mullen at TNM in his letter said they're entitled
to 45,760 gallons per day." I'm here to just assert that I'm not clear that they have the authority or the township's blessing to go above 45,000 gallons per day. But
if that does happen, it doesn't um trigger any uh uh reluctance or criticism from my office. 45,700 or 45,000 max. Uh the system can be
designed and will accommodate whatever is allowed the flow the maximum flow allowed by agreement and condition of approval. So just keep that in mind. I want to make sure I clarify my letter a little bit more next time to make sure you don't
think this is my I'm endorsing this number or we calculated this number. We're just simply reporting what has been submitted with this application to you uh at this point in the process. So that was a lot of conversation around something that uh
still needs clarification and I I apologize. >> No, Fran, it's definitely worth having the conversation and again as indicated before, please pick up the phone if you need to talk more about these things. We're here to help. >> Understood. I will continue to do that. Uh the only other um item on page three
uh on on sheet six of 36 there's just a couple of notes about um I would just ask that the engineer clarify a little bit about the the graphics and your [snorts] uh explanation of um you know the some
of the labeling I see that there's uh the sheet six has the existing sanitary sewer lift station that'll be part of that's the that's the sewer pump that uh is referred to a bit about phase two development. So that the sanitary sew is
going to get collected. It goes to this lift station and then it gets pumped into the holding tank [snorts] on the temporary basis. >> On a temporary basis before the town's new pump station is built and operational, you have to be self-sufficient, self-supporting,
standalone. So some of the the the elements, the pump, the lift station that you have on your plan and the equalization, the existing equalization tank or holding tank are the two main existing facilities that are going to still remain operational and utilized on
a on a temporary basis to serve FA, you know, the different standalone phases until the township pump station is built and operational. And you can therefore extend the new force main into the new
township pump station and disconnect the the the temporary facilities. Is that accurate? >> It's only the intention of our design is that we're going to be able to connect all the proposed units to the new pump station by gravity. We will no longer
need that existing on-site pump station. the we'll have it interconnected and we we could we could explain it in greater detail right now but the way we have it designed will be a very simple disconnect of that existing pump station and all the flows from the site which
would go to that location now will then flow by gravity to the new pump station located at the southeast corner of the site. >> So those are provisions you can specify in this interim temporary sewer system. Absolutely.
>> Uh engineers report. So that's excellent to hear that that that temporary small uh lift station will be only temporarily used. It will be decommissioned, disconnected, and eliminated. >> Yes. Correct.
>> The township sewer solution is available. >> Right. And and in your comment 11 on page four, that engineering report that will contain all those details as you just outlined. >> Excellent. Okay. Mr. Chairman, those are really clarifications. I wanted to have a clear
message. >> Okay. Thank you. Um, you want to have a question? Come on up, sir. He needs the mic. >> Thank you. Is this on?
>> Yes. Uh, Kenji Ha Street. Um, I know this is the question for the engineer, but I just want to clarify. There's a lot of um comments and letter that all seems to be dated June 15th which is just yesterday and to the best of my knowledge those have not been posted on the website. Uh or have they?
>> It's all posted on the website. >> No. Okay. Cuz earlier when I checked they were not. So we'll get that. Um thank you. Um so I I apologize. I was sitting in the back right underneath one of the um air condition ducks and depending how close you were holding to the mic some of the
stuff go in and out. So uh plus I'm a harder hearing anyway. So, uh, so I apologize. So, I'm asking you to repeat a lot of things that that may or may not have been already mentioned. So, um, and I'm glad you clarified one thing. There's there is a new, um, pump station
that's being built because I know on the north side of the building, there is an existing pump station and that's not going to be used. Is that correct? So, individual units will have gravityfed pipes that goes into the new pump station. Is that just want to clarify
that first? Eventually during the early stages of the project, that existing pump station may be continued to be used to pump the effluent to some existing equalization tanks that are part of the existing wastewater treatment plant where the the
effluent can be then be trucked uh away from the site to a treatment facility. So at such time until that pump station new township owned and maintained pump station is built that existing pump station will have to be remain in operation.
>> So the actual um if you will the the shipping the trucking from that is actually from the equilization tank not from the um existing pump station. >> That is correct. >> Okay. I didn't think it was going to go into the equization but did that change
or is that always been planned? >> That's been the plan. Okay, sorry. Um, so there's a new plan and then, um, I know there's mention about utility plan. Uh, and again, I I didn't see that on the website, so I didn't get a chance to look at it, but I is it known now that
where the connection with the force main and the connection from the new pump station to the force main, is that all in the utility plan? There is an overall utility plan as part of the drawing set that identifies the
approximate location of that pump station. It hasn't the design of that pump station has not been finalized as of yet, but it's shown on our that plan on the TV there. It's at the very southeast corner of the project site. Um
>> Okay. So, that's outside the ring row. >> Yes. >> Uh okay, got it. Thank you. Um so right now the plan is as the units are being built um and I know we're going to focus on phase two right now gravityfed pipes
going to the new pump station and that's going to until the hookup it's going into the equalization tank and that's going to be trucked out and then at some point when the final plan for the force main is um finalized and then there's
going to It's going to be constructed and there's going to be a connection from the new pump station so that it will flow um then it just goes right into the force main. Is that correct? That is correct. That the plan at this point would be eventually all the units
constructed on the site. All four phases will flow by gravity to the new the proposed pump station and from there it will go by force main to the um beayhore regional sewer system at some point north of here.
>> So the pump station services not just phase two phase one phase two phase three and phase four all of them. >> That is correct and that's that was what we were just having in the discussion about those numbers and what the gallonage would be. So it would include all four phases. So the original plan
was because of the existing wastewater management plant was going to be limited to 40,000 daily and then there would uh there would be some kind of uh monitoring and with the flow because right now all your calculation is based
on D parameters and so on. But at some point I believe it was said that after the third phase or something like that there will be a monitoring and you can see whether you're going to hit the max or not because then you may have to go back to unit. But because of the force main solution it sounds like pretty much
what whatever the plan was that you have for the max unit that's pretty much a go ahead right now. Is that correct? >> Yes. >> Yes. What happened that the existing >> we already answered for you but [laughter] >> well but just so you know for for clarity sake that existing treatment plant was permitted for a maximum of
40,000 gallons per day. So unless there were modifications to that treatment plant which were not proposed that the site the the development of the site had to be limited such that it did not generate more than 40,000 gallons per day. with the alternate plan now of
decommissioning that treatment plant and providing for the alternate plan of providing the pump station and and pumping the affluent offsite. Um then it would allow for the complete the construction of the entire project as is
proposed to allow for the the um construction of all the affordable units that are required by the state for this project. So are you involved in that design of that uh force main? >> I am not. >> You're not? Okay. What if hypothetically
so based on the plan and on a sort of temporary basis the effluent um will be trucked out right offsite and then at some point um it will be get connected to the force main. Hypothetically, what happens if the force main doesn't get
built? >> The the force main is a part of this the plan for the project. >> I I understand that. So, right now, you're getting final approval for phase two um and so on. So, the phases and meanwhile the design on that force main
is uh being worked on and so on. At some point, that's going to get constructed. Who knows what happens and so on. So there could be delay, time lag, whatever either temporarily or maybe for a longer basis. So question is again it may never
happen but um if for some reason it is delay you will and I don't know if Mr. Kogan is going to be one to answer but you will continue the current process. >> I can jump in Mr. that that's governed by the amended redevelopment agreement. I think the cost of trucking shifts at
some point if it's not built within the three-year mark. >> I'm sorry, I wasn't referring to the cause. I was trying to understand the process right now. He's describing the handling of the sanitation. Um, well, I'm just trying to make sure we understand what happens under certain scenario. So, it's not about the cost.
>> It'll continue being trucked, but the >> I'm sorry. Could you let the applicant answer, please? >> Well, no, that's a legal document with the township in a redevelopment agreement. So that's that's already has nothing to do with this. >> Yeah, Marty, I can. So the the agreement states and I think anything can happen
as you indicated, but the chance of the force main not being built is incredibly rare. So what the agreement states is that for >> Sorry. So was the Knicks winning the NBA championship. That's [laughter] okay. >> Let's not go there. But um what the
agreement provides as Marty was just explaining is that for the first three years the applicant will bear the cost of trucking the affluent offsite. After three years that falls on somebody else, whether it's the township or the MUA, we don't know. But if the force means not
built in three years, the applicant's responsibility to truck pay for the trucking ends. So somebody else is going to have to figure out what to do. But again, everyone is very confident. um all all parties involved that this the force meme will get built. It'll comply with all D standards as we were just
discussing with the TNM engineer um and if you comply D really can't say no. So I don't think the there's a realistic possibility won't happen but that's what the agreement says. >> No and I get I'm asking a hypothetical and it could be delay who knows right the D whatever. Um okay so three years
the magic time. So during that period, the applicant or the developer is responsible for that and then when that's over um it could be the township or it could be >> who knows who. But again the the three years starts when we start generating
effluent. So right now is since we got approved people have been working Fran's office we've been in talk with MUA everyone's been working to finalize that and move it forward. So the process to build the
sub main, the force main is moving. The three years hasn't started yet. So we may actually have may say say a fiveyear window before we have to worry about that scenario. So the three years kicks in once we start with the with the effluent flowing. So we have more a
difference of opinion here. I'm not sure. [laughter] >> So again, there there's a three-year limit and and then we go from there. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. >> And Mr. G, I just checked the website. The material is there for you.
>> Um dated today's date. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Uh anyone else have any questions? >> All right, there's no more questions. We're going to close uh public questions for this witness. Uh, attorney counselor, is this the last witness?
>> This is our last witness. We're ready for public comment. >> So, if there's public comments now, >> good evening. I'm going to swear you in first. So, >> sure. >> You swear to tell the truth, nothing about the truth. So, I help you God. I do. >> I just spell and state your name for the record. >> Alicia Unison, unus.
I'm at 8 Riverside Lane. I'm making a statement for CEO, Citizens for Informed Land Use. We thank you all for your time this evening. We do have um a statement for you. Since its founding in 1998, Citizens for Informed Land Use
has consistently and vigorously argued for one core principle of land use policy. Preserving the quality and quantity of drinking water by protecting the swimming river watershed. CEO appreciates that in response to sustained public outcry, the township has taken steps to address legitimate
concerns about preventable drinking water contamination at the Vonnage site from the antiquated on-site wastewater management system. However, Celu has long opposed the extension of sewer service into southern Homeell because it opens previously protected areas to
incremental and higher density development. Although the township has stated that this extension of sewer service farther south will be limited in scope, deed restricted and sized exclusively for the current project. Celu finds these assertions to be
inconsistent with Homeell's historical precedent. Sewer infrastructure originally approved solely for the Bell Works main building was later extended to serve surrounding town homes and single family residences that had been planned with septic systems. The public
was then assured that sewer service would not extend beyond Bell Works, an assurance that is now being abandoned as we consider the Vonnage redevelopment. Once sewer infrastructure is installed, the sewer to expand its use is both foreseeable and inevitable. Celu
believes there is a viable and far less damaging alternative to extension of sewers. the use of a modern package treatment plant with on-site leech fields and subsurface discharge. Such a system would effectively remove contaminants from wastewater while
preserving groundwater recharge, protecting the integrity of the wershed and the remaining fully consistent with Homeell's master plan and the township's wastewater management plan. This approach would address public health's concerns without compromising one of
Homeell's most environmentally sensitive areas. For decades, Homedale Township has made deliberate, thoughtful investments to protect one of its most critical assets, the Swimming River Reservoir wershed. Millions of dollars in public and private funds have been
dedicated to preserving open space, protecting groundwater recharge, and safeguarding drinking water quality. Those investments were based in science, long range planning, and understanding that this area functions as a primary source of drinking water for more than
300,000 residents in Mammoth County. This need to protect our drinking water is the reason the New Jersey state government has designated the area as a planning area 5, the most environmentally sensitive of all of the planning designations. That understanding is also embedded in
Homeell's master plan wastewater management plan and in the R4R zone zoning adopted more than 20 years ago for Southern Home. The decision is a ma measure of the planning board's commitment to responsible stewardship
grounded in science. It is an opportunity to make thoughtful, purposeful decisions that uphold Homedale's long-term planning goals and environmental protections. We urge you to act with integrity and fortitude, ensuring that this decision strengthens
our community, respects our guiding principles, and leaves a legacy that residents can be proud of. Thank you for your time. >> Yes. Come up. >> I do. and spell your name.
>> Patrick Troska. T R I S C H I T A 56 Line Road. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Yep. >> Nice to see you again, Scott. >> Hey, Patrick. >> Um I want to thank CHA. Excellent plan
for phase two. Uh the the condos and the affordable the in market uh places and the uh affordable housing look great. I think it's a great project for Homeell. Um, Homedell now has a population of
17,500. Over a third now, nearly 6,000 are over the age of 55. So, this is a great project for Homeell and it looked great um as proposed
several years ago. It looks even better now with the force main to the um to this place to this place as well as the force main to our new uh fire and EMS center that would be on 520. So I
encourage uh TNM to move forward as quickly as possible so that the seniors have someplace to move into. I think these uh 65 units as well as the 104 units will be uh very competitive and
very uh useful and Homedale residents will take advantage of them as soon as possible. I encourage you to move forward as quickly as possible to approve this plan and get it to fruition. Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> Yes. Kin GHC Street. Um, >> tell the truth, not the truth. >> I do the Nicks that win. No. Um, I'm sure your attorney will cover this and and Mart is good at this, but um, what I thought, and I'm a complete lay person,
but what I thought I heard was that the the road that's going to be in for phase 2 is only 24 ft versus the redevelopment call for 25 ft. Is that correct? >> Well, comments. So, so it's a very minor point. I'm not making a big deal of it,
but just just to cover it, you know, a little bit is that the redevelopment plan, I believe, supersedes any local ordinance. And so, >> so it it is not contained in the redevelopment plan. It is contained in the underlying ordinance and what supersedes both of those is the state
residential site improvement standards, which which permits 24 ft. >> Ah, okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. Okay. Anyone else have a comment? Come on up. >> Hello. Am I on?
>> Am I off? Okay. All right. Um, >> I swear you swear to tell the truth about the truth over here. >> As far as I know, I will tell the truth. The whole truth, nothing but the truth. Ambantempo, 22 Gra View Drive, Homeell,
New Jersey. Proud resident for nearly 30 years. Um, I've gone back and I don't know if the master plan means anything to the township and the planning board. Uh, I've gone back to 1958 since our first master plan was written here for
Homeell and with specific jurisdiction over the southern slope. It has always been an area of concern. It has been environmentally sensitive. And with the northern part of Homedale, which I've I have tons of papers here
and I can quote it all for you, but I'm going to summarize with the overdevelopment in the northern part of Homeell. Uh and the lack of recharge water because of that uh there is to the
Ramines or from the Raritin water recharge there is salt contamination because of the ocean the Atlantic Ocean. We don't have enough recharge water coming in at the north end of Homeell because of all the ground coverage that we have. So, there's
actually restrictions that have been placed on the north end because of that. Um, and also there's a tight-knit link between the north and south end of Homeell. We have to be extremely more conservative
on taking away any recharge water from the southern slope of Homeell because the northern end has been so compromised. I don't know if you've ever read up on any of that, but as a planning board member, it's land use. And um I may not be accurately correct
on what is the domain here, but I would really ask that the board be very considerate on understanding that by depleting the recharge water to the southern slope by putting in a sewer, having a sewer done that it will further
decrease the quality of our drinking water that will exist that is already at critically low levels. We've already compromised the north end of Home Del through all of the construction that's been done. If you put a sewer in, if a sewer goes in, the original plan to have
a brand new treatment plant put in that TNM had struck out by the U owners because they didn't want to do it or for whatever reason was a good plan to put in a new functioning on-site treatment plant because the water would go back
into the swimming river reservoir. it would be recharged. We wouldn't be depleting a critical water supply for potable water for us. In the end, it'll cost us more money if we don't have good drinking water. We already had one algae
bloom this year. I don't know if any of you were affected by it, but I was. My water tasted like dirt. I could not drink my water. If we don't have enough water recharging into that system and the nitrate levels go up, we're going to
have more of that. That means that the American Water Company has to treat that water with more chemicals and those chemicals get passed through to us. So I think there should be a backup plan if the sewer system doesn't go through
because we will have to change our master plan, our land use, our wastewater management, all of the documents here that say to protect the southern slope to maintain a certain amount of recharge
water because it's invaluable to over and it's been said before 350,000 people in Mammoth county. We can't shoot ourselves in the foot in the long run. And that's what we'll do if we have this sewer system go in.
And there's documentation here from former mayors, from Mayor Cody to Mayor and Prevadoodle that I can read out to you. I have the articles right here that all say we shouldn't do this. We shouldn't sew the Southern Slope. Please, I'm begging each and every one
of you to think about the actions you're going to vote on. We seen the effects on the northern end of Homedale and it's damaged it. We have saltwater contamination coming in because there's not enough recharge
water in the north end. If we start putting in sewers in the south end, we take away the recharge water. We start lowering the con. We lower the water, increase the concentration of materials that we don't want, and then the water becomes
first of all, a swimming river reservoir is a stagnant reservoir. You increase the chemicals, the nitrates, you're going to have more algae blooms and more problems. Correct me if I'm wrong. If anybody up there can wants to argue the point with me,
any of the engineers, board planner, am I seeing anything that's incorrect? >> It's public comment then. >> Okay. I'm just asking for feedback. That's my comment. And I'm begging you to please consider this
wholeheartedly, >> okay? because I will fight for this with every breath I have. Thank you. >> Okay, any other public comments? >> Okay, so we're closing public comments now. Um
I guess now I'll make a motion to Anyone want to make a motion to accept? >> I'll make a motion to accept. second. >> Um, >> Mr. Vanderham, >> yes. >> Mr. Fagan, >> yes.
>> Miss Plaus, >> Mr. Bell, >> yes. >> Mr. Antonucci, >> yes. >> Mr. Man, >> yes. >> Mr. Sberman, >> yes. >> Motion passed. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you board members and board professionals for your time this evening. Again, again, a thanks to the
board professionals for being so generous with their time uh getting us here this evening and reiterate the offer to reach out if there's any questions in the future. Thank you everyone. Have a good summer. >> Yeah. Um All right. So, at this time there's no reports. So, we have a motion to adjurnn.
>> Motion. >> Second. >> All in favor? Hi. Thank