Heat. Heat. All right. Good evening everyone. Welcome to the Township of How's Planning Board meeting for Thursday, December 4th, 2025. Opening statement, please. I hereby declare this meeting of the How Township Planning Board to be open
adequate notice having been given pursuant to the New Jersey Open Public Meeting Act in the following manner. First, on January 3rd, 2025, a copy of said notice was emailed to the Asbury Park Press and the Star Ledger. Second, on January 3rd, 2025, a copy of said
notice was handd delivered to the clerk of the Township of Howell. Third, on January 3rd, 2025, said notice was posted in the office of the planning board and on the bulletin board in the Howell Township Municipal Building, 4567 Route 9, Howell Township, New Jersey. In
accordance with the fire prevention code and for your safety, please be advised that this facility is designed with two emergency exits at the front and rear of the meeting room. Furthermore, smoking is not permitted in the municipal building. Please take note that this meeting is being videotaped for possible
future broadcast on Howell Township TV77. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Uh roll call, please. >> Mr. Bo >> here. >> Mr. Greenfield >> here. >> Mr. Carbonic is excused. Mr. McNicholas >> here.
>> Mr. Mercer >> here. >> Uh Mr. Tannenhouse is running late. >> Councilman Nadell >> here. I think >> Mayor Lejo is excused. >> Mr. Freriedman >> here. >> Mr. Wetco >> here. >> Chairman Huzer
>> here. >> You have a quorum. >> Thank you. Um I've been thinking about this all week and it's it's a hard thing to do um to discuss the passing of our longtime uh planning board attorney Ron Cooiierro. Um it's not knowing him so
well and you know I've only known him for 10 10 11 years and I know people in this room have knew him a lot longer. Um he wouldn't want this drawn out. He would like it short and sweet but he uh he was a a great guy. Did a lot for me. Did a lot for this township. Um, you
know, I just remember conversations where we would start about planning board and then end up talking about volcanoes or, you know, just weird stuff. And the the one thing about Ron which I cherished is um he he spoke to
you like a human being. Um I I I see that a lot with uh you know doctors, dentists, attorneys. um they have this mantra of where they they speak to you in in a certain tone and and Ron was never like that. He he was a great guy
um you know a husband, a father and um he'll be missed. Um I I will you know give um people you know um I know the the professionals here uh have known Ron uh New Ron a lot longer than I have. um
if they want to take a couple seconds to say anything. If not, that that is completely fine, too. But I I just wanted to say he he will be missed in this township. >> No. Okay, Laura. >> Well, I'll just say I, you know, I love Ron. I I was able to work with him for
my entire career. I'd like to say he taught me how to be an attorney, only I'm not not actually an attorney. Um he will be missed. Um I I think he's the best land use attorney I work with. Um his ability to cite case law was
something, you know, you don't see every day. Um so he will be sorely missed. Um and as I I I've actually started issuing my reports and you know I will say everybody be patient with me because I'm I'm just not ready yet to take his name off.
>> Yeah. Understood. So, um, but I appreciate the ability to speak cuz he was a great friend and a great attorney. >> Thank you. >> Um, all right. So, at this time, would everybody please rise for the pledge of allegiance and a moment of silence for Ron and his family. Keep them in your
prayers in this holiday season. I aliance to the flag of the United States of America to the republicy and justice for all. >> Okay, thank you. >> Uh, let the record reflect Mr. Brian Tannenhouse's gracious with his
presence. Brian, good evening. Okay, on to correspondence. Um, we have uh an ordinance 0-25-44 amending article uh 10. Um, that's interesting. The township code entitled
zones creating a section 188-84.7 entitled moderate and low-income housing mixeduse overlay zone 17 known as the ML17 zone. Um Laura, Jennifer. >> So this is an ordinance. I know we've
done a couple of them over the past year or so associated with our housing element and fair share plan. So, this is in furtherance of the town's um ongoing obligation to provide low and moderate income housing and um is consistent with all of our planning documentation that
consistently represents that the township of Howell is always has been and will continue to comply with our um low to moderate income obligation as pursuant to the Fair Housing Act. So, I would say it is substantially consistent. >> Okay. Thanks, Jen. Uh any questions,
board members? Seeing none, I will entertain a motion that this ordinance is substantially consistent with the master plan. >> Motion. >> Councilman Nadell makes a motion. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Mr. Mercer with a second. Roll call,
please. >> Mr. Bado, >> yes. >> Mr. Greenfield, >> yes. >> Mr. McNicholas, >> yes. >> Mr. Mercer, >> yes. >> Mr. Tannenhau, >> yes. Council, Councilman Nadell,
>> yes. >> Mr. Freriedman, >> yes. >> Mr. Wetville, >> yes. >> Chairman Huzzer, >> yes. >> Motion carries. >> All right. Thank you. On to resolutions. First being area. >> There was other correspondents. >> I only got one on mine.
>> Um, I have some stuff on here from my >> Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah, your own corresp. >> So, uh, Lewis Bellisetta, attorney for case number SP 1034 A. Gutierrez Properties LLC sent an email that they are withdrawing their application uh
which is on tonight's agenda. They will be resubmitting an application to the zoning board in the future. >> So Gutierrez case number SP-1034A is withdrawing their application from planning board and submitting application to zoning. >> Mr. Chairman, you should take a a vote
of the board to memorialize that you're >> taking jurisdiction away from yourself. Got it. >> It's up to him to go to the zoning board. >> Understood. Um, I mean, I know my vote on that one. So, I uh Yeah, I will take a uh I guess
>> I will definitely take a motion to approve. >> A motion to approve them the that they're taking away from the planning board >> to go to zoning >> to go to zoning. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Who? Who are they? The names >> for the motion. >> So, we have Mr. Mercer
>> and the second >> Mr. Mc McNicholas. So, I have a vote. >> And then we need a roll call, please. >> Mr. Bato, >> yes. >> Mr. Greenfield, >> yes.
>> Mr. McNicholas, >> yes. >> Mr. Mercer, >> yes. >> Mr. Tannen House, >> yes. >> Councilman Nadell, >> yes. >> Mr. Freriedman, >> yes. >> Mr. Wetco, >> yes. >> And Chairman Hugger, >> yes. >> Motion carries. >> Thank you, Pat. Are they under any time
of time frame to get into zoning? >> Uh they'll start with a new clock, >> brand new clock. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> It's it's a it's going to be treated with its own application number as if you were starting from scratch on as of day one. >> Got it. Okay.
>> Um >> anything else? >> Yes. Uh Kenneth Pape, attorney for Case SP1135, StarCap Holdings LLC, asked that the application on tonight's agenda be carried to the January 8th, 2026 meeting with no further notice.
>> Uh what was the date of that? >> The meeting January 8th. >> Is that our first meeting? >> That's so we >> scheduling purposes only. Yeah. and then schedule it out. Once they approve the >> once they once you guys approve the
meeting dates for next year, then you carry it out. >> Can we reach out to Ken and >> Sean is in the audience. >> Oh, Jared's here. Okay. Hello. Sorry, bud. Um, okay. for for those in the audience. Uh case number SP1135
Star Cap Holdings LLC is being moved to for scheduling purposes only to the first meeting in January, which is January 8th, and will not be heard this evening. Uh okay. Uh yeah, we don't have dates for 2026.
Anything else? >> No, the only thing was that she said the meeting dates for 2026 were emailed before. >> Take a look at those, please, on your email. If there's any issues, please. >> Uh, no, they they were earlier than today. >> Um, but just take a look see if there's any conflicts.
>> Okay. Thank you. Okay. Uh, I guess on to resolutions. First being area in need of redevelopment study. Eligible voters, Mr. Bato, Mr. McNicholas, Mr. Mercer, Councilman Nadell, Mr. Freriedman, Mr.
Wetco, and myself. Do I have a motion? Motion >> Mr. McNicholas with a motion. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Councilman Nadell. Roll call, please. >> Mr. Bad, >> yes. >> Mr. McNicholas, >> yes. >> Mr. Mercer, >> yes.
>> Councilman Nadell, >> yes. >> Mr. Freriedman, >> yes. >> Mr. Wco, >> yes. >> Chairman Huzer, >> yes. >> Resolution is memorialized. >> Thank you. Next is case number SD-3025. Judah Burkowitz. Resolution granting submission waiverss. Eligible voters,
Mr. Bato, Mr. McNicholas, Mr. Mercer, Councilman Nadell, Mr. Freriedman, Mr. Wetco, and myself. Do I have a motion? >> I'll make a motion. >> Mr. Mercer, do I have a second? >> I'll second. >> Second. >> Mr. Freriedman. >> Mr. >> Roll call, please.
>> Mr. Bato, >> yes. >> Mr. McNicholas, >> yes. >> Mr. Mercer, >> yes. >> Councilman Nadell, >> yes. >> Mr. Freriedman, >> yes. >> Mr. Wetco. >> Yes. >> Chairman Huzer. >> Yes. >> Resolution is memorialized.
>> Next is case number SD 3027 RCH 162 Newton's Corner Road LLC. It's a resolution granting submission waiverss. Eligible voters, Mr. Bato, Mr. McNicholas, Mr. Mercer, Councilman Adele, Mr. Freriedman, Mr. Wco, and myself. Do I have a motion?
>> Motion. >> Councilman Adele. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Mr. Mercer. Roll call, please. Mr. Bato, >> yes. >> Mr. McNicholas, >> yes. >> Mr. Mercer, >> yes. >> Councilman Nadell, >> yes. >> Mr. Freriedman,
>> yes. >> Mr. Wetco, >> yes. >> Chairman Huzard, >> yes. >> Resolution is memorialized. >> Last resolution is case number SP-1141-6249US9 LLC. Resolution granting preliminary and final major site plan approval with ancillary variance and design waiver
relief. Eligible voters, Mr. Bato, Mr. McNicholas, Mr. Mercer, Councilman Adele, Mr. Wedco, and myself. Do I have a motion? >> I'll make a motion. >> Mr. Mercer, do I have a second? >> I'll second. >> Mr. McNicholas, for the second. >> Mr. Bato, >> yes.
>> Mr. McNicholas, >> yes. >> Mr. Mercer, >> yes. >> Councilman Nadell, >> yes. >> Mr. WCO, >> yes. >> Chairman Huzard, >> yes. >> Resolution is memorialized. >> Thank you. Okay, on to submission waiverss. Uh this is case number SP904
A3 for 3G Corporation the Goldmont Shopping Center. >> It's for amended preliminary and final major site plan. >> Jared Pape. Good evening. >> Good evening Mr. Chair, board members. Um yes, >> there was a another resolution for case
number SP113 >> on the agenda. >> I don't see it on the agenda. >> Okay. It's on It's on >> uh >> It's not on the agenda that's online either. >> Okay. So, what >> do I just >> Do you guys even look at it?
>> I didn't No, it's not on the agenda. >> Yeah, we'll table it till the the 18th. >> Okay. >> Or January. Sorry, Jared. >> All good. >> Good evening, Mr. Chair. Board members. Jared Pap with the law firm of Halurn
Pap. Uh appearing on behalf of 3G Corporation. We're here requesting submission waivers. We acknowledge Miss Newman's November 6, 2025 report outlining a number of um waiverss that are being requested. We'll defer to Miss Newman. >> So, Mr. Chairman, members of the board,
the submission waivers start on page three. It's actually quite a number of pages of submission waivers, but this is really a facade change to the existing building and enlargement. So, there's not really site improvements. So, as a result of that, I take no exception to the granting of these submission
waiverss for the purposes of deeming the application complete. >> Got it. Any questions, gentlemen? Okay. Seeing none, I will entertain a motion. >> I'll make a motion to grant the submission.
>> Mr. Tannen House, >> I'll second it. >> Okay. And Mr. Freriedman with the second. Roll call, please. >> Mr. Mr. Bato. >> Yes. >> Mr. Greenfield. >> Yes. >> Mr. McNicholas. >> Yes. >> Mr. Mercer. >> Yes.
>> Mr. Tannen House. >> Yes. >> Councilman Nadell. >> Yes. >> Mr. Freriedman. >> Yes. >> Mr. Wetco. >> Yes. >> Chairman Huzer. >> Yes. >> Motion carries. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. >> Thank you. >> And if I may, I I could stick around
just for the um to clarify the star cap. Uh the next application um as indicated in our office's letter, we are requesting an adjournment and we acknowledge that the first January meeting would be for scheduling purposes only. We would just request that it's carried with no additional notice
requirements. >> No objection. >> Got it. >> Yeah. >> See here that it's got an expiration date of the 31st. You need an extension of time. >> Jared, we need an extension through and including uh February 28th. Granted and
we'll send the letter to your office. >> Thank you. >> Thanks, Jared. >> Thank you. >> Happy holidays to you and dad. >> Same to you. >> All right. Thank you. >> Okay. So, one application this evening, case number SD3027,
RCH 162 Newton's Corner Road, LLC. This is for preliminary and final major site division. Councelor, good evening. >> Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the board, um Steve Goowen, Jeron, Howerin and Cecil on behalf of the
applicant. Um very briefly before I get into the uh application, I just like to echo the chairman's sentiments about Mr. Cuchiro. Um I did a lot of work with Ron over the years, many many cases both here in Alipin, Long Branch, elsewhere. Um always a consmate professional, great
guy to work with. Um and uh I personally being an applicant's attorney across the table from him learned a lot. Um starting at like I think he might have been the board attorney at the very first land use hearing that I did um and was always a gentleman and great to work with. So he will definitely be missed.
>> Yeah. Thank you. >> So my deepest sympathies to all of you uh and to the firm, Mr. M. >> Thank you. >> Um yes. So, uh, here we have, um, RCH 162 Newton's Corner Road LLC. Um, that entity is the owner of the property that
you see up here on the map. Uh, this property used to be a, uh, greenhouse and a florist business. Um, RCH is proposing to redevelop the site with 22 residential building lots uh, for fe simple residential homes. Um, with me tonight, I have Selen Joy, who's our
professional engineer. He's going to take us through the um site plan or the subdivision plat I should say. Um I also have Stuart Johnson uh from Midow and Wasco who's our architect. Um and the principal Jeff Garfinkle um principal of RCH is also here. Uh we have received
review letters from CME and from um Ivakian's office. Uh CME letter is dated November 26, 2025. The Ivakian letter is dated 121 2022. Um we will comply with all the recommendations in those letters. We're going to get into a couple things that were asked to testify
about during the presentation, but just in general, we're going to apply with all the board's professionals recommendations. Um, so without uh without going too much further, I'll introduce Mr. Joy. Um, get him sworn in and start his testimony. Sir,
>> do you swear or do you affirm that the testimony you're going to present to this board concerning this application now pending before it should be the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> Right. When you get to the microphone, we need you to state your name, give us your business affiliation, spell your
last name, please. And >> that that's a microphone on the desk as well. >> Yeah, you can you can stay right there. You can just sit right there in front of the mic, right? >> Yeah, I'll stand. I've been sitting all day. >> Enjoy a senior project manager at Verdantis who is serving as the
applicants engineer. I hold two bachelor's degrees from Ruckers University, one in environmental engineering, the other in environmental science, a master's degree from New York University in civil engineering where I am also a PhD candidate. I have 12 years of experience
and I am a licensed professional engineer with an active registration in the state of New Jersey as well as four other jurisdictions. I have been qualified before numerous boards as a qualified expert in roles of
municipal engineer applicants engineer as well as a third party uh expert. This is the first >> Thank you. We we'll accept your credentials. Thank you. >> Enough said. Um so this uh this plan that we're looking at um so and can you explain what this is? I believe this was submitted with our application. So I
don't think we have to mark this as a separate exhibit, but can you just explain to the board what we're looking at? This is the existing conditions an aerial of the existing conditions. And so on this aerial we're showing that there are two parcels
totally 9.7 acres. The existing in the existing condition it is a agricultural area formerly the Ramtown uh forest. Adjacent to the lots, there are houses
that are consistent with the R25 zoning district. Uh to the east of Newton's Corner Road, there are residential units with areas between 8,000 and 18,000 square feet with the exception of within Desire Court. On the other side of
Newton's Corner Road, there is the Ramtown Plaza as well as the Manisquan Bank. Do you want to you want to move on to your site plan? >> Uh yes, sure. >> Um so this one I think we will mark uh
Mr. McNamera as exhibit A1. Um and why don't you just explain to the board what we're looking at here? So >> So what's proposed is 22 residential lots. >> Um just identify the let's identify the plan first for the record. Uh it is the
architectural site plan and I believe we're marking it as a A1. >> So there are 22 residential lots. Our architect will speak more to the architectural design and compliance with the lookalike ordinance.
Along the edge of the property, there is a 50-ft buffer which contains 80HA trees which are spaced about 20 to 25 ft apart from each other as well as 381 evergreen trees that are spaced 10
to 20 feet apart from each other. Along for access there is a RSIS compliant roadway with a hardway width of 28 feet, a right ofway width of 50 feet, a culde-sac radius of 45 feet. On both
sides of the roadway there is a sidewalk with a width of four feet in term and No, >> you can leave it there. That's good. Uh in terms of stormwater design
in the existing condition there was or actually going back to the roadway with it being a 28 foot cartway width. There will be posted signage on one side of the street saying that there is no parking as well as no parking within the
culde-sac. In terms of storm water there in the existing condition, there is a drainage divide that splits the the storm water splitting causing more than half of the storm water to go onto residential properties
to the east. To combat this problem, we raised the culde-sac up to force all storm water to go to two bio retention basins located to the west of the property along or near Corner Road.
By doing so, we've substantially decreased the amount of storm water. And for example, towards the east, now there is a reduction versus the existing conditions for the 10-year storm of 88%.
For reference, the regulatory requirement is only 25%. Along the frontage of the property, there will be milling and paving along Newton's Corner Road, replacement of the sidewalk, new curb.
Additionally, the property line actually extends into Newton's Corner Road. This area will be dedicated to the township. >> Just a quick question. Um, the the ingress and egress, where is that in relation to the commercial property
across the street? Uh immediately across from >> immediately across from the entrance to Wawa. >> Oh uh the Ramtown Plaza >> isn't isn't that a W? That's Wawa, right? >> It's it's directly across the street from that. >> Yes. >> Prefer that as opposed to having it
offset. Offset is is more dangerous than an actual control intersection. >> Okay. That's that's all. Thank you. >> Then
in terms of construction, the it will start with the construction of all infrastructure as well as one model unit. Following uh the construction of the model unit and the infrastructure, it is
it's expected that two model homes will be constructed at a time or two homes will be constructed at a time. >> But it's all going to be developed in one phase. Correct. That's the intention. >> Yes. So specifically all of the infrastructure, all of the utilities,
all the grading, all the site work. >> How close are some of those houses? They're all spaced 18 a minimum of 18 feet away from each other. >> Um, real quick, you said that the radius
was 45 ft on the culde-sac. >> Yes. >> Okay. Um, cuz in the fireport and according to the code, it's um a 96 ft diameter and that would only be a 90 foot diameter. So, is that um a little small on that or
>> So, what ends up happening is they're governed by the RSIS, the residential site improvement standards. It's not an uncommon comment for us to see that from our fire bureau. Um but that's what they're obligated to comply with. >> Okay. They're obligated to comply with
the 96. >> No, the residential site improvement standards. >> Okay. So, that's go to the 45 radius. >> Correct. >> Okay. Just one. Thank you. And with that, we did run truck turning templates for the Ramtown Fire Company's
apparatus. And we were able to show that both fire trucks that they use for uh first calls are able to turn around in through the whole development without any stopping, any reversing, anything. >> Okay. But just try not to limit also to
the the future also because there is going to be at some point some new apparatus coming in also. Okay. Um I'm just turning to the uh I'm going to go through a couple of these comments in the CME letter. So just make sure we hit these. Um so in terms of the um ownership and maintenance of the
proposed road and storm water facilities, can you just describe what the plan is for that? >> So there will be an HOA developed to maintain both the roadway which will remain private and the storm water uh basins.
Uh the currently the the two basins are on two separate lots and a additional lot will be requested for the roadway. Um okay good. So just to make uh just to be clear because I know that question
was um had come up that the uh all of the um the road and all the storm water management facilities are going to maintain they're going to be private be maintained by the HOA. Um obviously this association or this development is going to be governed by an HOA. We'll have to prepare HOA docs and submit them to the
board's attorney to make sure we capture any conditions of the resolution, that kind of thing. So we would agree to that as a condition of any approval. Um so someone any um fences, retaining walls, decks, patios or accessory structures proposed uh for the for all of the individual lots?
>> Uh no, in our stormwater design, we've accounted for an additional 800 square feet of to account for future development. So if any resident wanted to put in a pool or a shed, that area is already
accounted for without them having to do a redesign for storm water management. But at this moment, there is nothing proposed beyond what is shown on that. >> What percentage of lot coverage would that be? >> It would vary depending on the lot
because it was a flat rate of 800 square feet per lot. >> We're going to need a percentage. Uh yes, I believe it was on the plan, but if it's not, we will. >> So, just so the board is aware why that's important is this zone doesn't have a maximum impervious coverage. And
so, I believe the board should impose which is why we we asked what is that number because I think the board if the board were to act favorably needs to impose a limitation >> like 30%. Is that like a >> correct good range?
Um, >> let me Laura, so let me get this straight. By doing that, right, does that say >> a certain amount of people can put in pools, decks, patios, and a certain amount can't.
>> So you have restrictions on your develop. How does that how if you put a cap on that, right? >> Per lot. >> Per lot. >> Per lot per lot. >> It It's a per lot calculation. It's not a perite >> per lot. >> So if it's like let's say the the
periodities coverage is like whatever 50%. >> It's 50% of each of the lots. And I'm just I'm just making no >> but each of those individual building lots would be allowed to cover 50% which
would be the driveway, the house, a pool, a patio, whatever. So, and so it's per however many lots there, it would be equal across the board. >> That's, you know, they obviously evaluated it to a certain extent to do the drainage. So, >> Got it. Okay. >> You just want to make sure you put a
percentage in there in the resolution so that >> when they come in to get permits from the town and that they know exactly how >> Jen just clarify for me. What's the difference between percentage versus the set 800 square feet that's part of the
calculation already? Typically, it's done as a percentage of the lot area because if you have a larger lot, >> the longard, >> you know, it's uh you're going to be penalized. >> So, so essentially, we'll just the applicant will as has has stated on the
record they have 800 square f feet and if one lot it's 12% and the next lot is 12.1 and the next lot is 13.1, he'll just do those calculations for that 800 square feet per lot and then that'll be >> we need we need to know what it is for the resolution. Otherwise, the entire
building envelope is going to have pavement on it. >> Got it. >> Right. So, um so each of the uh the maximum footprint of each one of these homes um is approximately 2,000 square feet. Um as Mr. Joy just said, you know,
up to an additional 800 feet of impervious coverage for patios and that kind of thing. Um, so 2,800 divided by 8,000, which is our smallest lot, would be 35%. >> 35%. >> So if that works, we would agree to cap it 35% per lot.
>> Yeah. >> Nick, I just have a question on that. >> Yeah. Councilman, >> what are the different sizes of lots? 8,000 is a smaller. >> Uh, it goes from 8,000 to 43,000. >> 43,000. Is that your basin lot? >> Uh, no.
>> I believe 43,000 is lot 40 >> or 64, but it includes the the 50 foot buffer. >> So, how would the impervious work on something like that? >> It's taken from the whole lot. We don't subtract out the buffer even though they
can't use it. >> Okay. >> Because 35% of that one is >> big. >> A lot more than >> the 8,000 foot lot. >> What's the size of that lot? >> 43,000. >> So it's an acre. >> It's an acre.
>> Okay. Third of an acre covered with impervious. That's I mean that's typical for that's probably less than that we would allow in our in our 1acre zoning. >> All right. Okay. >> I'm looking at that.
>> I I'm sorry. I still don't understand I still don't understand the reason the applicant said that he's calculated 800 square feet per lot of some type of impervious coverage. Correct. >> Yes. >> Whether that's a shed or that's a patio or that's a pool.
Why are we talking percentages? >> Because that's how we calculate. >> I don't care how we do. I understand that he said 800 feet is if somebody wants to do something else have an acre. They're not coming back to you. >> No, they can. If we do not impose that possible because the zone is
currently set up without a maximum impervious coverage. So our concern in guiding this board is we are recommending you impose one. So you can't have 800 square feet at 800 ft versus a percent. >> Correct. That's what I'm getting at.
>> I think that that's a colossal mistake. You're going to wind up flooding the zoning board with cases unnecessarily. >> 35% lot coverage is tiny. >> Comparatively on a on a small lot like this, typically I would see them upwards
of 50 plus% for total lot coverage. Not building coverage, total lot coverage. And if someone has if someone has an acre lot, why should they be restricted to 800 square feet at the same time? >> Because that's what the applicant said. >> That that's the minimum. 35% of an acre
is not a lot. I I I don't agree with your assessment. You guys can do it how you ever you want. My recommendation is they've committed to 35%. I think >> Well, then does that mean the applicant's got to then redo his storm water calculations with a 35% lot coverage? >> He doesn't
because they've calculated in for their pavement. I I I think we're making this into more than it needs to be. >> I agree. >> I think 35% is a nice number. >> I can't get into
>> Well, here's the only thing. So, I think that um I think we were talking about the 35%. I'm not sure we were also including the driveway um which we'd want to include in that impervious coverage number. I would think, right? Yes, >> I know. Just saying. >> Do we make it 40 to make sure we can
have our driveways? >> That's 32 >> 37.5 >> 3200 per lot. >> But at least that won't have the we won't have the problem that you're talking about about having everybody come into the zoning board for a
coverage variance. And that would accommodate the largest potential home footprint um including decks and everything like that with the driveway. >> Is there any chance somewhere you have a percentage on like say lot number 74
just so we could get a if you happen to have it. I'm saying did clarify clear things up real quick. If you give us a number in the smallest lot that would be the >> Yeah, we have that. >> That's where that would be affected the most, you know. >> Yep. Give us one second.
>> So, at the moment, lot 57 has a percentage of 50 or 37.4 uh%. >> What is that? >> 37.4%. >> Right. So, that's >> that's 37.4 before with nothing done. They were saying 35 wouldn't work,
>> right? That's why I just said 40 to accommodate for the driveways. >> I don't even think 40 would work. >> Well, I mean, are we sure 40 is going to work? >> I don't think 40 is going to work. >> And the driveways look like they vary in size anyway. Like lot 53, the driveway >> because lot 64 is not going to be affected by this. The smaller lots are
the one that are going to be uh really >> cramped and cutting the numbers. >> Looks like it has a longer drive. No, we're good with 40. >> Good with 40. >> Brian, you got it. >> I I I think all of it is stupid. I think
that if you get a 1acre lot, you get 40%. 40% of 44,000 is is is almost 18,000 square feet. >> What's your point? >> That they can pave. >> Well, these aren't these aren't oneacre
lots, though. >> I thought you said only one of them. And one they're eight they're 8,000 square foot lots. >> I heard 44,000 just one. >> Correct. One of them is 44,000. >> Yeah. But that the one lot the one lot 44,000 storm water.
>> Correct. So which is the which is the one lot that's uh one acre >> lot 64. >> I I think you're going to have to convince me that let's say that 1acre lot. Let's just take it for instance. Keep the math simple, right? It's 44,000
40%. Let's just say it's around 18,000 ft². If I take 18,000 square ft and I pave it, does that affect your storm water calculations and your runoff in any way, shape, or form?
So if the the future homeowner wants to pave to 18,000 or an additional 18,000 square feet or beyond what is there then >> they will need to design for storm water management >> right
>> but if I could so we don't typically see that on any of our subdivisions right any of our traditional subdivisions that come in where there is this maximum it's the same on any other subdivision future homeowners come in, they want to build a pool, they want to build a deck.
>> Um, I hear what you're saying about the 144,000t lot and that one's specific. I mean, maybe that lot coverage needs to be 30%. Because >> that's what I was getting at is >> and maybe it's just that lot and the balance of the lots can sit at 40. My main concern to the board is I just want
to make sure you set a standard because what I don't want to have happen is have none and then have too much impervious. But to your point about storm water, they base it they base it upon an additional 800 square foot, which is more than most subdivisions when they
come in to be perfectly honest. >> You know, I get I get that. I get that. So So the next question I have is is okay, you raised up the back of the site and you made made testimony that you're improving the storm water that's presently running towards the residents
in the back. Are we doing that because there's presently any issues? Is it being done as a good neighbor or is there known existing issues? And Brian, I don't know if that's a question for you from the town standpoint.
>> There is issues down the road. Um um not ping red blood I think over that area. There is issues with water flooding out. >> Yeah, we had an issue with the last storm a couple years ago. We had go out
there and redo all the pipes. how but a contractor all flooded out. >> So, so, so I was just if you can roll with my thought proc, right? If they're redirecting all this water away from the present existing residences, if they're
doing it because there is an existing issue and they're trying to solve that issue and then we're allowing all this additional pvious coverage by adding these percentages of lot coverage. Are we then going to lose that advantage that they're building into this design because a future resident is going to
put a bunch of pavers in their backyard and we're going to be back to storm water issues for residents? That's what I'm trying was was ultimately trying to get to. >> So any future resident if they add that much impervious coverage onto their lot,
they would be bound by the storm water management regulations. And >> but is it your experience that an 8,000 square foot lot the improvements a homeowner is going to put in are going to trigger storm water rags? No. So that's the real answer, >> right? And what's the trigger? Like who who knows to even look into that?
>> Well, that's when you submit a permit, right? It it goes through your land use and your engineering department. So that's who's going to review it. What I'm going to tell you is I don't think any rear yard development on these lots is going to trigger the need for
additional storm order. So, you've heard that they've taken it into account an additional 800 square foot per lot. That's more than we're used to seeing, but again, that's what they've done. Um, >> got it. >> If I can, I don't want to drag that out
too much, but the example that you gave that was at 37 and a half%, >> right? >> Um, could could you give me the quick numbers on it that what what would two and a half% more of that because they would reach their 40% limit a lot quicker than
So that is a >> what I'm trying to get as are they going they they might not even be able to get to that 800 number. >> That's correct. >> Okay. I was just trying to get the numbers on that. >> So it would be 212 square feet. 200 212
additional fee would bring them to the 40%. >> Yes. >> Okay. So what I'm saying is if they have an overhaul at 800 if you add up 800 times 22 that might >> you know where where you at then? That's enough. What's what's the average
compared to what they're doing? >> Guys, if you're going to talk about this, use the mic so the people in the public can hear you. >> I apologize. I was just saying how like if you could add 212 here, you know, that that's an extra 600 towards the 800, you know, like it's an average of
800 that would put you at that number. >> Okay. Um, so we talked about the um we talked about storm water design. Um Laura, anything else on the stormwater design from your letter? Any other questions about that?
>> Uh we had asked about how storm water from each roof will be collected and if drywalls would be included. >> At the moment, we do not incorporate any dry wells. All storm water was designed to be either
sent onto splash blocks and then sent onto the roadway or flow towards naturally on the grass and we were able to achieve our reductions using that methodology. >> You did your geotech investigation out there already. Did you did you do any
geotech work out there? We did two uh geotechnical uh borings in each basin as well as during our environmental investigation we did uh deep monitoring wells. >> What's the depth of the groundwater out there?
>> 32 feet. >> 32 feet. >> Yes. >> Static groundwater in that area is 32 feet. >> Good. >> I find it hard to believe but okay. >> You think it'd be higher than that. Okay. How many wells did you put in?
>> We put in I believe four >> permanent monitoring wells. Just 10 points. >> Uh 10 points. >> I don't know about that. >> Okay. >> Um we talked about the uh we talked about the grading um with respect to the eastern and southern property line. So
any other questions with with respect to that? I think we've gone over that. Um, talked about H >> I'm sorry. Storm water. Each lot's going to have a rain garden. >> No. >> No. Okay. >> Quick qu. Uh, what what was the drilling
method? Uh, they were just driven in temporary well points. >> Uh, yes. >> Okay. Um, >> what about your slopes? So, just while we're on storm water, because it kind of goes towards why my office wanted some level of drywall or connection of
runoff. You have some pretty steep slopes along the eastern and southern property line that are going to drain towards other properties. Um, we have concern about erosion as well as storm water. So, can you just testify to that?
So along the perimeter because we weren't able to I guess build out that that far we have threeon-one slopes which is considered stable by uh so erosion standards and it will be highly
vegetated and the vegetation will be able to further uh keep it stabilized. Then the the remainder of the development, the slopes are fairly flat. We're at about 1% through the
development. >> And what what can what can be the impacts that residences that are joining that slope can expect? So since it's so far back and in the buffer, there wouldn't be any real
impacts because it's pushed towards the edge of the buffer and our reductions are already so high that any impacts of storm water, we've already reduced them. >> Yeah. But it's going somewhere else. So you're saying that you're reducing it to
the residential properties. Therefore, um I just want to note, you know, should the board act favorably? I always have concerns when we do these 3:1 um slopes. I understand that it has to comply with freehold soils, but to get
it stable when you construct it, um can be problematic. So, I just want to make sure that, you know, ongoing throughout construction, if people were to act favorably, that's monitored. >> What about basement? I I sorry I don't remember if I saw basements in the architectural plans.
>> It's a question for them as to whether >> Well, we're going to have our architect testify next, so we'll talk about that. >> Well, it's relevant to the storm water management. So, do you at least happen to know if basements are proposed? >> Uh basements are proposed.
>> Thank you. Um, so maybe we could talk about uh the need for any um off-site improvements or improvements uh along the street here um along Newton's Corner Road. >> So in front of the the property,
Newton's Corner Road will be milled and paved. There will be new sidewalk, new curb, and yeah, that that's >> okay. Um, what's the status of our outside agency approvals right now?
We've received approval from uh the soil conservation district, preliminary approval from the Mame County uh planning board, uh preliminary approval from uh brick uh municipality
utility authority, and believe that's what we have so far. Okay. >> Um any other questions for Mr. joy on the civil >> I have a couple. So why do you have bends on the driveway? Why aren't they coming in perpendicular to the road?
>> So the first I believe 10 ft of every driveway is fully perpendicular to road and then from there it turns to be perpendicular to the house.
and you feel like that is a desirable orientation. So since the the driveways are perpendicular to the road on the outset, we believe that it is still safe and it's fully uh functional. Then to get to
the house, we wanted that piece to be perpendicular. I think people are going to be running all over their grass having had a driveway that did that, but we don't it's not like our ordinance has a specific standard. Can you talk a little bit about tree removal and the grading
within the buffer? We do propose the removal of uh I believe just over 200 trees which is why we are replacing with
uh three or 489 I believe and what about the grading within the buffer so we have very specific requirements that's technically triggering a variance so what is the re reason for the grading within the buffer >> the grading in the buffer was caused
because going back to the original storm water management uh point of how storm water is sent to the neighboring properties to be able to lift up and send
everything towards the basins near Corner Road. We had to lift up the culdeac. By doing so, we had to now grade up to this point and to reach back down because there was a
huge drainage divide. And so if we're trying to take water away from going towards uh the neighboring properties, we would not be able to do that without raising up the the culde-sac.
>> So we don't allow that. We don't allow grading in the buffer to help your storm water management. No storm water management anything is allowed in that buffer. This is a problem for you. And you don't have grading. You don't have the burming on the southern property line or the
northern property line which is required by our buffer ordinance. And so if strict compliance with the buffer results in fewer lots, that's just the way it's going to go. What's the >> So, you cannot grade in the buffer for drainage. >> Jen, what's the what's the engineering
reasoning behind that that in our ordinance >> because we want a pristine buffer with no disturbance. So, I mean, we've forced other applicants to redesign their sites to get the drainage out of there. You are allowed to cross the buffer with
your road or your driveway. >> That's it. Well, just to be clear, so we're not proposing any storm water management improvements in the buffer. Correct, >> Steve? The grading associated with the drainage is part of your drainage. We don't allow it. You're required to have
a six-foot berm in that 50 ft. Nothing to do with your stormwater management >> and then plant it. It's in section 63. It's clear as day for a major subdivision. >> Um, no stormwater management in the buffer.
So the and the grading takes out all the trees that are there. >> That's on the east side. >> Which which side of the site are we talking about? >> Wherever it's being raised >> down by the culdeac. >> There's a lot of um existing trees along
there. >> See all the trees? Yeah. That whole length. >> So the trees are coming out. >> You meet with Sher out in the field, right? >> No. something. >> So, question um as far as you're saying
you're raising east, right? So that the drainage goes west. Are you hauling in material to raise it or are you going to use just redistribute? >> Uh we will be bringing in material
>> and that's where the disturbance comes into play. Correct. >> Again, >> uh the disturbance comes in just by virtue of Right. So they're going to be in there. Yeah. >> Making a modification to adjust the
storm water. >> But again, so could you go over the the rationale for grading the site in that direction, >> guys? >> You can go over the rationale all you want. My recommendation is the grading needs to get out of the buffer, especially considering it's sloping down
to the back of those neighboring properties. So, as it's designed, I think you have a problem is what I'm trying to tell you. And you could you could twist it any way you want and give me every story that you want. We don't allow it in the buffer and because I want it is not
variance testimony. So, you're going to have to relook at it. And I would strongly suggest you meet with Sherry in the field and you look at section 63 of the ordinance. >> Okay. Uh, Laura, you had do you had any other comments or questions?
>> Uh, I don't believe I have any for this witness at this time. >> Anything from the board, >> gentlemen? Anything? I'm going to do this um out of the sake of the people in this in this room and
just open it up to the public for questions only. All right. If you get up here and you start going off on a tangent, I'm cutting you off. It's a question to the engineer. If you have questions, >> we'll let them know that they'll have time for >> Yeah, you you will eventually you can say whatever you want at the conclusion
of this application, but at this time with with the engineer here and and for his time um you're more than welcome to come up if you just simply have a question. Yeah, just a question. Come on up, sir. Ma'am, come on up.
Would you kindly state your name and your address, please? And you can move that down for you. >> Uh, sure. My name is Judith Ligus. I live at 570 Newton's Corner Road. >> Hi, Judith. >> How are you? >> Good. >> Question. >> Um, okay.
>> Questions only. >> So, did anybody do a traffic study? I didn't hear anything. >> This is just for the engineer. >> It's just based upon the testimony. >> Has nothing to do with that >> civil engineer. >> Okay. So I'm not witness. Okay. All right. So sorry that question. Okay.
>> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Uh we have one more Steve right behind you. >> Right behind you >> sir. Please state your name and your address. >> William O Bole 54 Lauraai Drive. >> Hi William. How are you? >> Good. Thank you. >> Good. >> Uh was any engineering looked at for
Laurelai Drive which is the road that's running behind lot 64 which is currently sinking? >> No. So again, changing would changing of the grade affect the housing that
everybody is flooding from and the sewer uh sewers which are currently uh have just been fixed or already sinking. Uh we've seen sink holes in the middle of the street. We're the only street in that entire development that hasn't been u paved. So, has all of this been looked
at as far as what's going to happen by I heard raising of the grade or um channeling the water somewhere else? >> I mean, I can have him answer about the grading, but as far as like the paving schedule and an existing public road that you're obviously experiencing problems with, that's a township
engineering issue. You should call Justin Yoast in the engineering department and raise these issues, but he can address the direct questions regarding the raising of the site and what the impact of that is going to be. And I'm sorry, I just want when you had mentioned about the water runoff, are we talking about deviating the water as it
currently goes now to a different location? >> That would be a question you could answer. Yeah. >> Yeah. So, in our design, we had water being removed from all the neighboring properties so we could send it to the bio retention basins to reduce the
quantity and send it into the township. >> I think that's confusing though. And here here's even what I heard. You're raising the grade and it sounds even to me like you're diverting drainage areas. So currently there's a drainage area that flows to the neighboring properties. Is that correct? >> Yes.
>> And that is essentially reduced by So the area of water that would go there is reduced and that's why you're proposing to raise the grade. >> Yes, that is correct. >> So essentially water that currently would flow in your direction will not because it's going to be lifted on this
site to stay on the site. Are we aware of the Ramtown Manor area and how it doesn't slope just this way, it slopes that way. The trees across the street are a retaining basin. So again, I I just ask if we've looked at raising the grade behind us doesn't
necessarily change raising the grade this way. The water comes from two locations. Uh the entire development, the way it's pitched is to run into that retention basin, which is the woods right across the street in between. And if you look, it comes from the top and it comes from
the back. So changing the grade, I I don't know how maybe you could tell me how it would be possible to pretty much raise the entire neighborhood up to deviate the water. It sounds like you want to go back that way. >> M Mr. Chairman, if I could make a recommendation,
Miss Newman, could you on on your pointer point out where the proposed basins are going to be for the neighborhood? >> They're right in front. They're right on New Square. and and it's my understanding from the testimony that you provided that all the water is being proposed to be diverted towards those
basins. >> That's correct. >> So any any water that's towards uh I guess what it's lot 64 and 59 that's back there presently going to the east right going into to to the neighbor's property will no longer be doing that.
It'll actually be moving towards Newton's Corner Road and going into the basin. Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. That >> makes sense. >> Thank you. >> You're welcome. So, current currently to the best of your knowledge, is it impacting eastern and southern
properties? >> Uh, yes. >> Okay. >> And so, just to the board, um, that is a my understanding of why then there's the grading within the buffer >> is to lift the site to redirect it. So,
that would be I mean, this isn't their planner. uh the planner would certainly provide the variance-based testimony, but that's what I'm hearing is that because they're lifting the site, that's resulting in the grading, it's going to result in the fill in that area, but
they're doing that in order to push the water towards Newton's Corner into their basin. I >> I think we're going to have to hear some testimony about that, especially if it if it's going into buffers and causing buffer issues. But like you said, that's that's what they're going to have to
provide to prove that variance need. >> And are we are we certain that the the elevation on the adjacent properties isn't also pitching back to that area where raising the grade would create kind of a pooling effect for those properties in the back?
Uh yes because we are we our m we make it back down to the existing grades and everything is now sloped towards Newton Scorn Road. Even if it >> but for those adjacent property those
those properties to the east on Laurelai Lurai a I guess or Lauraai road are we certain that those elevations are sloping towards Laurelai or some of those properties sloping towards the back where raising the grade
will create some sort of burm and pooling effect for those properties. So, so what he's saying is because you're lifting the grade, what are the grade levels of those rear yards? Are those rear yards flowing towards your project or are they flowing towards Lurai?
>> Those for the most part are actually flowing towards the west. >> So, it's it's a drainage divide. It goes half to New Corner. It's like a
>> So then the question is are you blocking the water? >> Uh no >> by doing the grading >> because by doing so we will >> even if >> there are certain properties that are diverted towards our property it would end up turning into a ditch that runs
eventually as a swale if someone is directed towards our >> So your plans have subst have enough detail to show that there's a swale created. Uh we do uh have the lighter topography of all adjacent lots.
>> Also, do you did uh environmental borings? Uh some groundwater temporary well points, geotechnical borings. Did you do any perk tests on the property to >> uh Yes, we did uh two perk tests within each uh fire retention basin,
>> but th those are all the way towards Newton's Corner Road. So there were no there were no perk tests done towards the east of the property where we're raising the grade. Okay. >> Any other questions? >> Okay. Seeing none, I'll close the public portion. Steve.
>> Yep. I'll bring up Steuart Johnson or architect. >> Okay. Um I think this could be pretty quick. >> Mr. Chair, I could probably make this really quick. >> Yeah. like unlike >> um all I really need to know from the architect is and and Steve you could probably answer this is that is the
applicant >> willing to comply with the with the town's lookalike ordinance. >> That's all I need. >> I agree. >> I agree. >> That's fine. >> Yeah. >> So Steuart, why don't you get sworn in? >> Sure. Do you swear or affirm the testimony
you're about to present to the board concerning this application now pending before it shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Uh, yes, I do. >> For the record, your name and business affiliation, please. >> Sure, be happy to. Uh, name is uh Stuart Johnson. I'm a principal at Minowasco
Architects and Planners, and we are the architect of record associated with the subdivision application uh being heard this evening. >> Um, >> so you heard the questions. Did you agree to comply with the lookalike requirement? >> I did. I just want to make sure I'm sworn in or do I need to finalize my
credentials? >> Yeah. Can you put your credentials on the on the record? >> I have a bachelor's architecture from Syracuse University. Uh registered architect, current New Jersey license. I've appeared before over 50 municipalities across the state. Qualified as an expert in architecture. >> Thank you. We'll accept your
credentials. Big win by the by the orange men the other night. >> Yes, sir. Thank you. Yeah. Um, so yes, to answer the board's planner's question, uh, the applicant the applicant is agreeing to and the project as designed and in my architectural
opinion complies with the lookalike ordinance and the lookalike ordinance requirements. Uh, specifically, I'll just >> we don't need the specifics, just yes or no works. >> Yes, it is. And again, in my architectural opinion, we have a few illustrative perspective renderings here that we submitted that depict uh the
proposed facades, but and we've provided digital material boards and called out the exterior building materials. But just for quick highlights is we have two different housing models that we're proposing. Each housing model has three different architectural styles. So uh on
our architectural site plan on the very first page we identify for the 22 lots uh 22 new single family homes that are being created we identify the architectural style that we are uh proposing and on the architectural
elevations we identify that style but basically every other unit and units across the street are different architectural styles. That means either that we have varying roof lines, varying cornis lines, >> excuse me, >> uh differing building materials. >> They work here. They know what the
lookalike ordinance requires. And I think they really just wanted you to say yes. >> Sure. Yes. I see I see the slides moving, but yes. >> Beautiful homes. Beautiful homes. >> Any questions for Mr. So are you stipulating as a condition that this will be the style of the homes as represented on the rendering?
>> Yes. >> That that was the question I had. Um, are you going to be testifying to the site identification sign, >> the monument sign? >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Okay. So, that >> I'm going to go to that >> last slide of the document.
And I guess, you know, I'll I'll just gauge right now. Are there any questions from the public for the architect? >> Okay, seeing none, >> I think he still has to go through the sign though. >> Yeah. Yeah, of course. Of course. >> Oh,
>> yeah. So, uh if if I can orient everyone to the sheet here, uh we are proposing a monument sign. This is at the entrance to the development. It's typical for a small subdivision or uh new residential development such as this. Uh that sign
we are proposing a monument sign that's approximately 10 square feet. Uh we're technically uh I believe only four four square feet are permitted. So we're seeking a variance for the size of the sign. Um you know we think it's a tastefully designed sign. Now um that
sign area the actual sign itself are raised raised channel cut letters that are affixed to the sign um right the overall dimension of that sign if we calculate that area is that area uh it's being clad in a stone veneer which is
what we're using on the buildings. Uh we have a composite ma a composite material that we're using that provides for a wood look. uh we have low landscape lightings that you know provide up lighting on this that provide elegant lighting again it provides wayfinding it
provides a sense of arrival it's typical uh we've designed similar in in you know surrounding communities um so I think it's tastefully designed elegantly designed um we are seeking a variance um but again I think it's appropriate uh given the community and what we're
proposing uh not atypical >> and you can confirm where The cursor is if you could see on the screen, this is the the location of the sign. >> That's correct. Yeah, it's identified on the civil site plan. This is the architectural site plan, which is a little bit more illustrative, but on the
civil site plan, it identifies that sign. Yes. >> And it doesn't uh encroach in any sight triangle. >> I don't believe that it does. U you know, it's a question maybe better for our traffic engineer who who will follow, but we don't believe that it does. No. Jennifer,
>> since you're the planner, in in your professional opinion, is there any benefit? I mean, >> we really have to have a variance for a sign. >> Well, they need a variance. Yes, if they have a sign. If they don't have a sign, they don't need a variance. I like the ordinance says what it says and they
don't comply with it. So, yes, they need a variance for it. >> If they don't want the sign and they just want a street sign, then they don't need the variance. Is is there is there a is there a way that that people may get lost trying to find this neighborhood being it's right across the street from Wawwa that they
would need such a big sign to go above on ordinance >> in the day of GPS I'm thinking probably no >> okay I only have one question that for lot 53 the way that it's looking if is following your plans that the back of
the house is actually hitting lot 54. It's not going to the setback. >> I'm sorry, I didn't hear your question. I was >> Lot 53. >> Yes, lot 53. >> So, is the rear set? >> No, no, no. If this is following the porch is here,
then the front of the house is here. It's not here. So, the backyard will be this. >> Right. But that's not how so that's still a side lot line regardless of how the house is oriented. And we're assuming because it's a side entry garage that that's going to be the front of the house. My guess is that the front
door is still going to be facing whatever the name of the road is. >> Um but the way that we >> calculate front yard backyard along the street is the front. Yes. Opposite that is the back. So, this may be a little different orientation than the balance,
but the backyard is still behind the structure to the to the south >> cuz I just don't want to be like a concern later if they're going to place the house and they're going to say, "Why is there my backyard none in the setback would be a little bit >> right?" So, that they would put the
whatever amenity between the house >> will be different versus the rest. >> Yep. >> Okay. >> Yep. D, how many cars can be accommodated in most of these homes? One in the driveway and one in the garage. >> So, each each home has a twocar garage,
and each driveway would accommodate at least two two tandem driveway spaces behind it. Some of the driveways are longer than others, which would allow for additional uh visitor parking. But each home has at least four parking spaces. >> And the one thing I was going to suggest, uh the municipal engineer had
reached out to me with a comment. They're seeing a lot of people convert garages into living space. >> And so his recommendation was um the board if they were to act favorably impose a condition that these not be allowed to be converted to living space.
>> 100% agree. >> Yeah, we agree with that. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Um if we could just go back to the sign for a minute. I just for the record, we we saw the picture on screen, but I want to share the dimensions. The sign is 42 inches in height. So it's three and a
half feet tall and it's five feet in length just to give a sense of the size of it. So we have dimensions here, right? So the base of that sign is 1 and 1/2 ft tall. Um, right? So it's one and a half ft tall. So that's 18 in of again
stone base and then on top of that is a 24 inch sign. Um again I think we were conservative in how we calculated that sign area per the ordinance that if you take that rectangle and create an area right what's the sail area of that
that's how we calculated the 10 square feet. So and again on this surface here that's 24 feet or I'm sorry 24 in by 60 in or two feet x 5 feet we have raised channel cut letters that are affixed to it. Again, we feel it's tasteful, it's
elegantly designed, it's building materials, it it's it's common. You know, again, I defer to the board in regards to obviously your opinion on it. Uh we think it's appropriate, it's well set back, that it's out of any sighteline issues. Um but I just for
clarity, just to give additional light uh to what we're proposing, >> would you agree that the height of the sign in total is about the size of this desk? >> Uh I would say yes. Approximately from I'm in a lower position. Yes. From where you are. Yes. Approximately height. That's correct.
>> Yeah. >> And just how far set back is it proposed from the line of sight for traffic and probably the traffic uh study would be better for that. >> Yeah. I mean the specific dimension or you know our traffic attorney can speak greater detail to it the adequacy of that but if we come back to the
architectural site plan um >> it's going to be substantially back >> from from the curb line here. It's it's easily appears to be about 50 feet or more, right? >> It's going to be 50 ft, right?
>> So this So this dashed line here is is the front yard setback, right? So you know your point, the buffer. Um so thank you. >> Sure. >> Any other questions? >> All right, Steve.
>> Okay. Um >> who just out of cur who do you have this evening? Um, so we saw the engineer, saw the architect. Who else do you have this even? >> So, we just have our traffic engineer. >> That's it. >> Yeah. >> No planner. >> No planner. >> Well, the only I mean, we're going to go back and talk about the bumper later,
>> but he just talked about the sign and that's the only other variance that they need. >> Okay. >> Um, I'm just going to call Nick Verice because he's our uh traffic engineer. There was a traffic uh question about the traffic impact study, course. Uh, so we'll bring him up. Nick.
Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give to this board concerning the application now pending before it should be the truth, old truth, nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> For the record, sir, please state your name and provide your business affiliation. >> Uh, Nicholas Veresi, Ve Res.
I'm a principal of Dynamic Traffic. Uh, Nick, could you just give the board your qualifications real quick? >> Yeah, I have a bachelor of science degree in civil engineering from Ruckers University in 1990, licensed professional engineer in the state of New Jersey, principal founder of dynamic traffic. Uh, I've appeared before this
board probably half a dozen or so times. >> Yeah, we'll accept your credentials. Thanks, Nick. >> You're welcome. >> Uh, so Nick, you did prepare a traffic study for this application, correct? >> Yes. >> And, uh, why don't you just talk to the board real quick about the results of that study? There was a question from the audience about it. >> Sure. So, we uh you know, as we always
would, we do we look at existing conditions. So, we perform some traffic counts uh along uh Newton Corner Road uh and Ramtown Plaza Shopping Center across the street. Um then, uh we identified future traffic conditions. Single family
homes are generally low traffic generators. So the site with 22 single family homes generates around 20 peak hour trips in the morning and evening. Uh versus uh the previous use on the site if you know if operating uh that
generated about double the traffic that this site will generate in the peak hours. Uh so you know in essence you know putting this in and replacing what was there when it was operating is actually a reduction in traffic but we wanted to make sure the new access
operated safely and efficiently. So we did some analysis there. We had good levels of service, acceptable levels of service. We lined up the driveway. I think you saw a previous plan where the new uh access road was misaligned with the shopping center. Uh and we real in
our latest plan we've now aligned with the shopping center that improves on you know conflicts between turning movements uh on offset intersections. Um we meet RSIs as you heard our engineers speak of
roadway width um uh centerline radiac uh just for the record uh the residential site improvement standards requires a 40 foot radius. We actually exceed that with a 45. So, we brought it more in line with what your fire department's looking for. We're not
fully to there, but I've worked on other jobs in town where we've done, you know, 40 or 45. Um, so I'm comfortable with that. Uh, and as our engineer mentioned, the fire truck can navigate that uh that culdeac.
Um, good sight lines at the access uh 25 mile per hour roadway along our frontage. Uh so you require 335 ft of sight distance and we meet that in both directions. >> Any questions on traffic? >> So just a couple of questions. You heard
the board comment earlier. So it is your opinion that aligning the driveway from a traffic perspective is uh a safer alternative than providing an offset. >> It is. Yes. >> And just asking, you don't believe that this would meet the warrants for a
traffic signal? Oh, no. Nowhere near. >> That's all I have, Mr. Chairman. >> Okay, I'm just going to bite my tongue. I >> want to say >> I Yeah, I mean, >> so what ends up happening, chairman, if you have an offset, you actually have conflicting.
>> Laura, I know it's that is what is the calculated on paper thing. I mean, let's be realistic, right? For any person that drives in Ramtown that goes in and out of that Waw Wa and now you're going to have a residential
>> of cars going in and out of that Waw Wa. I get nervous on Route Nine when there's a traffic light and we're turning and we're allowed to. That I understand traffic engineering. I get it. It scares me. Just putting it on the record.
And that's not like a, you know, a plaza with uh, you know, the ice cream joints packed. Wawa's packed. I mean, there's a lot of cars that go in and out of that place. And I've se I know the people in this room have seen that. I mean, it
>> I'll just leave it at that. But I get it. I'm the minority here. So >> So during your traffic study, did you do it three times? Just like you did one in the morning, one in the afternoon, one in the evening, kind of seeing if the traffic has progressed or has a decrease in amount of traffic flow.
>> Yeah. So, we we have historical data out here. Um, and what we look at is the peak hours, the most important time. When is the traffic heaviest on the road? When's the traffic heaviest for the development? >> They coincide because generally it's residential commuting traffic. So,
people coming in and out of the the new access are driving during the peak hours. So we use that highest hour. So we use a worst case scenario. The rest of the day it's better. >> Nick, do you do weekends typically or is it a Monday through Friday?
>> If we're doing commercial, we'll do weekends or something that uh Yeah. Not for residential traffic on this corridor is less on the weekend. Um so >> not baseball season. >> Um All right. >> Okay.
the I my professional opinion it wouldn't be very different than what you're seeing in the PMP gallery. >> Okay. >> Is your data taking any adjustment for the fact you've got so many more people working at home than say five years ago before the pandemic?
>> The um the data spans a lot of years so it maybe hasn't caught up with some of that. Uh so it it's likely conservative in that nature. Yes. So I agree with you >> and that that is Trish my me that is a 25 mile an hour zone or is that for the
25? Okay. >> And the interior of this development would be 25 also. >> Correct. >> Anything guys? >> Um Steve, I'm going to open it up to just questions for the traffic engineers for for the public. Just questions. >> No testimony.
>> Yep. >> Just questions. You come up come on up. Please come up to the podium >> and please just state your name and your address. >> Okay. Uh Courtney Flare live 28 lane. >> Hi Courtney. >> Hi. So I just have a quick question. How
wide is that entrance? So Waw Wa is very narrow people pulling in and out. It was very difficult when you're pulling in and out of Wawa. So how how large is that entrance to the development? >> Yeah. So there's two things.
>> Uh the Wawa driveway is likely 24 feet wide. We're 28 feet wide. But then we have 25 foot radi. They have lesser than that. So ours is much more open and easier to get in and out.
>> Okay. And then are you all prepared for the traffic volume that's going to be happening leading up to where all the buses come out from on the on the left there. >> Is that Round Green? >> Yes. It's like the first intersection
>> to the north. >> North Kawa, right? >> It's north of the bank. And that other shopping center right down the road that comes out there. >> There's a light there, right? >> Is there a light at that? No, >> there's not. Okay. >> No, there's no light. >> And that the four-way I mean, you all know that four-way stop is just
>> Are you talking the one between the bank and the shopping plaza or are you talking about the four-way stop? >> No, I'm talking about the one >> the between the bank and and where the the burrito re Okay. >> Yeah, that's okay.
There's buses that come in and out of there early in the morning with the kids. >> So I guess what's your where your question to Nick is has it taken that into account? >> The the volume just the volume going through there >> uh in the morning. >> We counted that intersection. So yeah,
we know the volume's there. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Nick, can you put on the record what days you did the counts? >> It was uh April 10th. I remember that's my birthday. So April 10th, 2025. So, school was in session. >> I was going to say it's not spring break, right?
>> Yeah, it's not spring break. >> Okay. >> Um they and just the the we all know the speed. No one follows that, you know, that my husband's in law enforcement and people are just constantly up and down
that road. Just so it's just another concern for more volume just speeding through there. Um it's just my is my concern. >> Understood. >> Township. >> Yeah. Like I said, um this this won't be your last chance to speak. So, okay, you know, if you if you want, you know, for
all members of the public, you know, we we want you guys to come and and speak your minds. That's the point of this. We want to hear it, you know, we want the the applicant to answer your questions. >> Y >> um so you will have an opportunity to say whatever you want to say once >> and then is the township prepared to
maybe do something about the four-way stop because the volume is just going to increase. That is just >> that's road. We don't have >> That's Mammoth County. >> Okay. So, you'd have to talk to the county. >> Okay. >> And then leading up to where we just had another accident today, you know, going down. Yeah.
>> Yeah. I'm sure we'll hear from you again. All right. Definitely come back. Thank you so much. >> Anybody else from the public? >> Okay. Seeing none, Steve, >> I have a quick question. >> Yeah. What's up? Uh, at any point was there any looking at
the the bank driveway if if the entrance was set across from that driveway as opposed to the Wawa or was that just not considered because of the lots and >> it can't >> I know it throws a wrench in like you know layout of the site.
>> I didn't lay it out. Um, yeah, we chose a driveway to be opposite because it worked well with the the >> But but you looked at having it offset, >> right? it there was look you look at originally at having it offset because I think it is it offset right now
>> the the entrance to the floor >> existing. >> Yeah, it's it's a little south of where we're showing ours. >> So So right now it's offset and you chose to just move it directly across from the Waw Wa but not looking at like the bank that wasn't looked at at all.
>> I can't say I >> I know you're Nick's concerned about like the Waw Wa traffic and it's hard to get out of there sometimes. I know. >> All right. I I just wanted to know if that was looked at at all. >> Okay, Steve. >> I think we're going to I'm going to ask
if we can take just a fiveminut. >> Yeah, we'll take a fiveminut recess professionals about some some of the things we talked about. >> Of course. Yeah, we'll uh we'll adjourn for five minutes. >> Okay. Uh 8:34 we are back on the record. councelor.
>> Um, so I I think what we want to do is um, you know, obviously the the major issue that got brought up tonight was this sort of grading in the rear of the property in the southern portion of the property. Um, what we'd like to do before, you know, asking the board to vote on this is um, meet at the site with Miss Newman, Miss uh, Spiro.
>> Yeah. >> Um, maybe do another technical review. We're going to talk about the grading in that portion of the site. Um, and then come back with a plan that, you know, your engineer is happy with. So, um, we'd ask that we pause here, carry it the next hearing, and we'll come back with some additional testimony.
>> Mr. Chairman, before we close on that. >> Yeah. >> Would it be would it be appropriate for us to also mention that maybe the applicant should study how the water is affecting the neighbors behind the rear and and and provide some testimony and
how they're improving? >> Yeah, they're they're >> I'll go out in the field, but they're not they're not under an obligation to address an offsite issue. I can what I can make sure is that theirs doesn't have any impact on that or >> that's what I was getting at. So because they're asking for variances, right? And they think that part of their their
testimony next time should be the variances is is it has to provide a public good. Am I correct in that counselor? That when you have a variance, you have to prove a public good. So one of the public's good would could be how to redvert water that's presently bothering the neighbors in the
back and improving that situation. that would be a positive that the board may or may not look favorably on. That's what I was getting at. So, so the public doesn't always understand these technical stuff that we talk about. So, I wanted to make sure it got on the record and the public knew that that was one of the things that you'd be looking
at. >> Absolutely. >> Thank you. >> Okay. So, so Steve, I guess, um, with the end of the year coming, right, we'll we'll put you on for scheduling purposes for the reorg meeting and then I guess we'll have to decide on a on a meeting
thereafter. Um, you know, we'll try and get you on ASAP. >> Yep. >> And then, um, >> well, we're going to have to I mean, we need time to coordinate a meeting out there and >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Of course. >> Plans and stuff, >> right? So, um, I don't know. I guess we I you have to be here for the reorg
meeting, right? to to give you a date or to >> I'm not doing anything else. >> Okay. Yeah. I mean, we could put put something in February. Okay. >> Yeah. >> Their application is also >> Yes. Can we get an extension of time
through February? Okay. Okay. Steve, happy holidays to you and your family. >> Thanks everybody. >> Thank you so much. >> Mr. Chairman, you need to vote. >> There's no vote >> to what? >> No. spoke to Carrie. >> Oh, we're voting Carrie. Yeah, we don't
I don't think I think we're good. Um Jennifer, master plan update. >> Uh only that we are still in the middle of mediation for the affordable housing um circumstance here. Thankfully, that
process is coming to a close or has to be done by December 31st. There will definitely be amendments to the housing element and fair share plan that we approved earlier this year. That will probably happen in the first quarter of next year. It will not happen before the
end of the year. >> Um and so that that will definitely happen probably the first quarter of next year. >> Okay. >> Any impacts? >> What >> any impacts? I mean, you know, we have a
pretty solid plan and we and I will I will say that the town in this particular instance was extremely proactive in meeting with prospective developers and formulating a plan and then additional, you know,
ranking the those that were not initially selected to add if need be. um as opposed to some of my other towns that are kind of flying by the seat of their pants because this process is moving whether you're ready or not. Like it it has to be done by December 31st.
Like there's no extensions. Even the program judges are asking for extensions and the court said no. So I think we're really in good shape here. Some of our neighbors, particularly to the south, may have some issues. Let's just say >> um
>> keep it at that. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Uh gentlemen of the board, we will need to meet in executive session this evening to discuss a matter. Uh that matter will not involve the public. You
are not um uh you will not be hearing of the executive session. Uh this will be in closed quarters with just members of the planning board. And after that time, we will officially adjourn the meeting. So, I would ask that members of the planning board go to the back quarters
um to discuss a matter. >> We don't need you guys. I mean, we always need you guys, but >> I believe I have to read this statement. Chairman, >> I believe I have to read a statement for executive. And yeah, this is uh for for members of the public. Thank you for
coming as always. Um we I I certainly love it. I know members up here love it. Um, when the case comes back, come back. You know, come back, voice your concerns, voice your opinions, questions, that's the time for it. Um, you know, so I know you you probably had more to say and it wasn't the correct
time, but bring it up uh at the next one when when you know the dates are announced for that, but we always encourage the public to come. So, thank you very much. All right. And happy holidays to you all. >> Uh, so, >> Mr. Chairman, if we could have a motion. >> Uh, do I have a motion to go into executive session? motion for purposes
of attorney client communication and >> we got Mr. I'm gonna say Mr. uh Mercer made the motion and I'll say Mr. McNicholas did the second. >> All right, Laura, Sherry, Jen, happy holidays. Thank you. I don't know if the 18th is going to happen so we'll be in
touch.