Heat. Heat. All right. Good evening everybody. Welcome to the township of How Planning Board meeting for Thursday, March 5th, 2026. Opening statement, please. >> All right. I hereby declare this meeting of the how Township Plating 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 8th, 2026, a copy of said notice was emailed to the Asbury Park Press and the Star Ledger. Second, on January 8th, 2026, a copy of said
notice was hand delivered to the clerk of the Township of Howell. Third, on January 8th, 2026, 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. Roll call, please. >> Mr. Bato, >> here. >> Mr. Freriedman >> here. >> Mr. Gimble, >> here.
>> Mr. Greenfield is excused. Mr. Carbonic >> here. >> Mr. McNicholas >> here. >> Mr. Mercer >> here. >> Councilman Rebell >> here. >> Mr. Wet >> here. >> Miss core >> here. >> Chairman Huzer
>> here. >> You have a quorum. >> Thank you. Would everybody please rise for the pledge of allegiance and after a moment of silence for our men and women who have served both here and abroad to the flag of the United States of America to the stands nation.
>> Okay. Thank you. Okay. On to approval minutes for the regular meeting of August 21st, 2025. Eligible voters, Mr. Bad, Mr. Freriedman, Mr. McNicholas, Mr. Mercer, and myself. Do I have a motion? >> Make a motion. >> Mr. McNicholas, do I have a second?
>> I'll second. >> Mr. Freriedman. >> Mr. Bato. >> Yes. >> Mr. Freriedman? >> Yes. >> Mr. McNicholas? >> Yes. >> Mr. Mercer? >> Yes. >> Chairman Huzzer? >> Yes. Motion carries. Minutes are approved. >> Okay. The approval of a regular meeting
for September 18th, 2025. Eligible voters, Mr. Bato, Mr. Freriedman, Mr. Carbonic, Mr. McNicholas, Mr. Mercer, Mr. Wetco, and myself. Do I have a motion to approve? >> I'll make a motion to approve. >> Mr. McNicholas. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Mr. Mercer.
>> Mr. Mercer. >> Mr. Bato. >> Yes. >> Mr. Freriedman? >> Yes. >> Mr. Carbonic? >> Yes. >> Mr. McNicholas? >> Yes. Mr. Mercer, >> yes. >> Mr. WCO, >> yes. >> Chairman Huzzer, >> yes. >> Minutes are approved.
>> Okay. Approval of minutes for the regular meeting of October 16th, 2025. Eligible voters, Mr. Vato, Mr. Freriedman, Mr. Carbonic, Mr. McNicholas, Mr. Mercer, Mr. Wetco, and myself. Do I have a motion to approve? >> I'll make a motion. >> I'll second.
>> Okay. Mr. B, and Mr. Freriedman. Mr. >> Bos. >> Mr. B. >> Yes. >> Mr. Freriedman. >> Yes. Mr. Carbonic. >> Yes. >> Mr. McNicholas, >> yes. >> Mr. Mercer, >> yes. >> Mr. WCO, >> yes. >> Chairman Huzer, >> yes.
>> Motion carries. Minutes are approved. >> And an approval of minutes for the regular meeting of December 4th, 2025. Eligible voters, Mr. Bato, Mr. Freriedman, Mr. McNicholas, Mr. Mercer, Mr. WCO, and myself. Do I have a motion to approve? >> Motion to approve. >> Mr. Mercer. Do I have a second?
>> I'll second. >> Mr. B. >> Mr. Bato. >> Yes. Mr. Freriedman. >> Yes. >> Mr. McNicholas, >> yes. >> Mr. Mercer, >> yes. >> Mr. Wco, >> yes. >> Chairman Huzer, >> yes. >> Motion carries. Minutes are approved.
>> Thank you. Do we have any correspondence this evening? >> Uh, yes. From Ken P uh for application SP1133A, Archangel Michael Adult Day Healthcare Center. Um, he would like it to be carried to another meeting. He's here to talk about the date.
>> Mr. Chair, members of the board, good evening. The Archangel Michael application was reviewed by your staff and it was determined that the submission we made wasn't complete enough for this board to hear the application. We took that C council to heart and we've hired a traffic engineer
to assist us and we would ask if the application which was published for this evening could be carried to a date in May to give us an opportunity to do the necessary study. And I'd ask if there is a date in May. >> Um that's available. >> Yeah. Do you want the first or the second meeting in May? Whichever is better for you. wherever you've got the
room. >> There's one case on May 14th, Star Cap, and May 21st has Seaf Free Plaza. >> You want the 14th? >> I'll take the 14th, Mr. Chair. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Could we carry to that? We published a notice for this evening. Could we carry it to that date without further notice
or publication? >> Yep. >> Yeah. Ken, the expiration date's March 31. >> On the record, we'll extend it to May 31, and I'll provide the letter tomorrow. >> Thank you, Ken. >> Thank you. And and so anyone here on uh
application SP1133A, Archangel Michael Adult Day Healthc Care Center, Inc. for minor site plan approval, this application is being carried to May 14, 2026 without further notice. So if you're here just for that,
you don't need to stay. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Ken. Thanks, Andy. Is there any other correspondents? >> No. >> Okay. Uh we have no resolutions this evening. Okay, on to submission waiverss. Case number SP1145,
Vanderbeeer Industrial Partners LLC. It's for preliminary and final major site plan. Ken, you got a busy evening. >> Good evening again, Mr. Chairman, members of the board and professional staff. This is the 10 industrial court and another of the small industrial
buildings on industrial court. There is on page six of Laura's report um under paragraph three a list of checklist waiverss. We defer to Miss Newman, but we're requesting the board consider these favorably. >> So So Mr. Chairman, members of the
board, um one of the items which has to deal with um descriptions for any easements that would be actually provided if the board acted favorably for resolution compliance. So that's a temporary waiver. Um, as it relates to um the balance, um, I I would recommend
um that a 2,000 foot downstream drainage analysis be provided. Um, but the balance of the items, I would take no exception to the granting uh of waiverss for the purposes of deeming the application complete. So, we would just need checklist item 60. >> That's acceptable. >> Okay. >> Thank you.
>> Any questions? >> Seeing none, I will entertain a motion to approve. Make a motion to approve. >> Mr. McNicholas, do I have a second? >> I'll second to approve. >> Mr. Mercer, >> Mr. Bato, >> yes. >> Mr. Freriedman,
>> yes. >> Mr. Gimble, >> yes. >> Mr. Carbonic, >> yes. >> Mr. McNicholas, >> yes. >> Mr. Mercer, >> yes. >> Councilman Rebel, >> yes. >> Mr. Wco, >> yes. >> Chairman Huzard, >> yes. >> Motion carries.
>> Thank you. >> All right. Um we are going to switch the order of the applications um just because uh one's a little more involved than the other. So going first is back to Ken. Uh this will be for case number
SP904A-3 3G Corporation and the Goldmont Shopping Center. This is for amended amended preliminary and final major site plan with ancillary variance relief. >> Good evening Mr. Chair, members of board, board professionals and public
Kenneth Paple on behalf of 3G. This is the Goldmont Shopping Center is the one with amazing savings as its anchor. The request that we have for the board this evening is to do a facade modification to change the signage for amazing
savings and to more symmetrically balance the the front of the building. before ask if you could confirm receipt of our notices and taking jurisdiction of the application. >> Yes, Ken. The board has jurisdiction.
You can proceed. >> Wanted to um during the day today, I was contacted by Mr. Yo's office and it was brought to my attention and I brought to our client's attention that there appears to be an unckempt rear yard at
this center. Um, we figured out which tenants needed to be addressed. I brought it to the attention of the property owner. I wanted to begin by saying that your applicant, your property owner is fully aware of the issue and understands that whatever relief, if there's relief granted, would
be withheld until such time that that property is cleaned up. Wanted to get that right out. >> Thank you, Ken. Appreciate that. >> We appreciate it being brought to our attention. The presentation is is to modify portion of the current facade of
the main building. Um Mali Rub is the architect who's responsible for the plans. We have a fairly succinct presentation on the facade changes just with permission from the professionals and the board. We're ready to make that presentation.
>> So if Miss R could be sworn in, we'll place her credentials on the record and go right to it. Do you affirm the testimony you give will be the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> State your name for the record. Spell your last. >> Melissa Rob Rub.
>> Miss Rob, would you take a few moments to share your education and professional background with the board? >> Absolutely. Good evening, Mr. Chair, members of the board. >> Uh my name is Melissa Rob. I'm a registered architect in the state of New Jersey. Um I have I was I'm a graduate
of the City College school um school of architecture. Um, and I've appeared before this and other municipal boards throughout the state. >> And is your license in good standing on this date? >> It is. >> We all accept your credentials. Thank you. >> Thank Thank you. >> Thank you. >> If you could describe the revisions that are proposed and if you could from an
architect's perspective point out their benefits. >> Absolutely. Sure. So, um, as Mr. Cape described and you can see on the architectural rendering before you and on the elevation on the screen behind you. Um we are proposing modification for about 50 feet of the facade to the
right of the current Amazing Savings sign. Um the store has already expanded on the interior of the shopping plaza and so the signage just mirrors that expansion. Um it adds some symmetry to the like as Mr. Um he described the
anchor store in the plaza um and removes two of the existing signs that are currently there. >> I believe there's a portion of the architectural treatments that has a logo on it and that constitutes a sign for which relief for which we would need to
request relief. >> Sure. So that circular portion would be the >> little circle is a logo becomes becomes a sign. Mr. Chairman and members of the board, that is your applicant's presentation. That is the relief we're asking. Our client would like to make
further capital improvements into the building essentially to thank Amazing Savings for becoming about another third larger than they were before. >> Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> Well, this is your uh your forte. So if you have any questions. >> So as I looked at your drawings, there was one item that I was looking at which would be the existing columns are there. They going down to the foundation, but do you know how far down that there was?
I see you want to put metal studs going around it to protect it and then you can put a brick veneer. So why would you rather why would you do that rather than using CMU? >> Um that's a good question. Um so the idea was to match the size and shape of the current columns that are on the
lefth hand side. >> Um CMU is just a little bulkier. So you know to get the same dimensions so that the the two are balanced. Um in terms of durability um at the end of the day it is a face brick. So that would you know the the CMU wouldn't add to the durability in my opinion. It would it
would pretty much be the same end result. >> And were you the original architect to this plaza? >> I was not. that do you because I see there was a lot saying to match existing on your drawings. So if there's not a manufacturer that match that brick or
match that ephus well with the plaza then will in turn be repainted to match the existing color. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> And if the brick is different would you then have to do extra work for the extra veneers?
>> So I think that we would do as close a match as we can. And I can't say that they'll pull off the brick on the existing columns. I don't know if that's, you know, cost prohibitive, I would say. >> Okay. I'm just looking at it more of a perspective of like when you're driving that makes looks more cohesive. Actually, I drove to the site just to
make sure I don't go on that side of town. So, I just wanted to make sure like where amazing savings was and that the ballers are going to remain. >> That's correct. >> Okay. That's all my questions. >> The ballers are required. >> Yes. I just wanted to know if there was like any repair to them or anything like
that. >> Any other questions, gentlemen? Seeing none, I'll open up to the public if the public has any questions or comments this application. Seeing none, close the public portion. >> Mr. Chair, we respectfully ask that the
board consider favorably the relief that we're requesting for our client to enhance the front facade of the building to change the architectural features across the front of the building. >> Great. Thanks, K.
Okay, gentlemen. I will entertain a motion. Um, please state uh as we all got the email if you're making a motion to approve or deny this application when you make a motion. So, I will entertain a motion. >> I'll move to approve the application.
Okay. >> Second. >> Mr. Freriedman is making a motion to approve. >> Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Okay. And we have a second. Mr. Gimble with the second. >> Okay. >> Mr. B? >> Yes. >> Mr. Friedman? >> Yes.
>> Mr. Gimble? >> Yes. >> Mr. Carbonic? >> Yes. >> Mr. McNicholas? >> Yes. >> Mr. Mercer? >> Yes. >> Councilman Rubell? Yes, >> Mr. WCTO. >> Yes, >> Chairman Huzer. >> Yes.
>> Application is approved. Motion pass. >> Thank you. >> Good night. >> Good night. >> Thank you. >> Okay. And on to our last application this evening is case number SD3027 RCH162 Newton's Corner Road LLC. This is for
preliminary and final major subdivision. Good evening and welcome back. >> Good evening. Thanks for having us back. Um, so again, Steve Goowen, uh, Giron Howler and the CEO on behalf of the applicant. Uh, to my right is Tom Mhler from Dynamic Engineering. Um, so the
board will remember we were here uh, December 4th, 2025. We presented some testimony and, um, we had we all sort of resolved that there was a bit of an issue with some drainage in the rear of the property and that we were going to come back and take a look at that and try to come up with a better design. Um
so actually what the applicant did was brought Tom in from Dynamic um to take over for the prior engineer of Verdantis um to come up with a solution for that. Tom's going to present to you uh what we think is a much improved layout for the project overall. Um uh you can see it on the screen here. Uh you can tell it's a
little bit different from what you were looking at the first time where we had sort of an angled driveway and and units coming out at an angle. Um, so the the current layout obviously uh we think is much improved and and Tom's going to speak to the fact that they were able to um pull out of all of the buffer areas,
which is something that we talked about last time um and solve the uh the grading and the drainage issues. So, I'm going to introduce Tom, um have him give his professional qualifications, and we'll get started. >> You swear the testimony you give will be the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth to help you got. >> Yes, I do.
>> State your name for the record. Spell your last. >> Thomas Mueller. M U L L E R. Um, and so Tom, before we start, could you give the board the benefit of your professional qualifications, please? >> Absolutely. I'm a licensed professional engineer in the state of New Jersey in good standing. I have a bachelor's of science and civil engineering from
Ruckers University as well as a masters in engineering um from Ruckers University. I've been a senior principal with the firm of dynamic engineering consultants based out of Lake Ko. Been with the firm for over 15 years. I have experience throughout the state of New Jersey on many similar projects. Um, I
have presented in front of the township zoning board. This is actually my first opportunity in front of the planning board, but I've appeared to uh many boards across the state of New Jersey. >> We will accept your credentials. Thank you. >> Thank you. Thank you. Um, so Tom, why do you uh why don't you explain to the
board um you know after you got a chance to look at the the site plan that we had originally presented to the board in December um what you looked at and the revisions that you uh that you made. >> Absolutely. Um, so what you see on the screen is a colorized rendering of the updated site plan layout. Um, this is a
site plan rendering prepared by my office dated March 5th, 2026. This is just an identical site plan layout to what we submitted as part of the updated application package. What we did here was we just colorized the light the site. We show the landscaping around the
site. We show the different buildings in different colors and we show the new cartways within the middle of the site in the uh the gray colors. You could see the sidewalks and stormwater basins along the front of the site. >> And just for reference, this is uh it's exhibit A25 on the exhibit list, the
updated exhibit list. >> Yep. So on exhibit A25, the north arrow is directly pointing up on the screen, which is uh the same orientation that the previous exhibits were prepared in. Um so as Mr. Goen mentioned, dynamic engineering has been brought on as a new engineer of record. the site plan
package that was submitted on February 20th is the new site plan package that will govern for the site. So what we did was we were brought onto the team and we immediately started working with the applicants professionals and we immediately reached out to the township professionals. We we got a an immediate
understanding of what some of the concerns were. I did have the opportunity to review the recording from the previous planning board hearing on on December 5th uh 2020 or December 4th, 2025. So, I do have a deep understanding of what the concerns were. Um, the previous application proposed 22 total
dwelling lots. They had the cartway coming into the site on a a skew uh coming into the site. They were aligned to the Wawa driveway, which is across the street. It's towards the bottom of the frontage uh that you see on exhibit 825.
What we did was Yeah, exactly. What we did was we actually took a look at that and we realigned that driveway so it's straight across from the Masquon bank driveway. That allow allowed us to bring the roadway in nice and straight into the site. We eliminated a residential
site improvement uh exception that the previous application had for the center line radius. So now what you see is a much more common design, a nice clean straight cartway right into the site with no curvature. Um, as that cartway comes into the site, there'll be a culde-sac at the end on the eastern side
of the site. And then we were able to branch off onto a secondary road, which is currently shown as road B. Um, just to get into that deeper part of the site. So, we made the site much more efficient from a layout perspective. And as a result of this, we were actually able to add two dwelling units, which
I'll touch on in a few minutes. So, whereas they previously were proposing 22 total dwelling units, we now have 24 total dwelling units. Uh some of the main points of concern that were identified at the last hearing were obviously the residential buffer.
So first and foremost once we took a look at this layout, we started from the outside in and we redesigned the site to completely comply with the 50-foot setback requirements. We pulled all of the grading out of that area. We pulled out all the stormwater management. We
shifted the culde-sac and the roadways inward. We shifted the building footprints inward. and we were able to completely comply with that 50- foot setback. The only technical deviation or variance that's required for that setback is simply to remove existing improvements that are in that buffer.
Um, most of the board probably knows there's green houses, there's a number of driveways, there's a number of other improvements, parking areas in that existing 50-oot buffer, including the nursery itself. All of that obviously is being removed and by ordinance that does
technically require a variance but immediately after removal we prepared a substantial landscaping plan that will reforest that buffer. That applica that plan has been submitted to the the township's landscape reviewer Sher Sparrow. We had the opportunity to
review it with her. We do we did review her review letter and we have no problem addressing their comments. So after proposed development goes in, we're substantially replanting that buffer area. Um, also as part of the buffer improvements, we're removing a
significant amount of invasive species. So again, that was worked out with uh, Mparrow. So we're removing a number of invasive species known as tree of heaven, and we're replacing it with a more native and more appropriate plant in that buffer area.
And also, as I mentioned, we're tying in all of the grading to that buffer area. The previous application had a very steep slope. Uh the applicant's previous engineer noted that he had a 3 to1 slope in that buffer right up against that eastern property line. We completely removed that buffer disturbance from
this project. And as I'll touch on in a minute, those um eastern buildings, they're going to be designed as walkout basements. And that gave us the opportunity to make up that grade change and tie into the uh existing grades along that buffer line.
Uh the applicant also has agreed to provide monuments along that buffer line just to demarcate it and make sure that no future disturbances h um is will occur in that buffer area. Uh as part of the other layout improvements, we increased the cartway
width to 30 ft wide. There was previous commentary uh with the previous application that it was 28 ft wide which does not support parking on both sides. So there was some concern about providing no parking signage on on part part of that cartway but we increased
that to 30 ft to meet residential site improvement standards which allows parking on both sides of the roadway. Um the previous application also, as I mentioned, skewed that roadway and all of the driveways basically came in to the proposed roadway at an angle. Uh
there was certainly some concern from from Miss Newman at the previous hearing. And what we did was we realigned all the driveways and the cartways so that they're all 90° turns into the proposed roadway, which is a much more safe and efficient design than what was previously proposed. That also
allowed us to make the property lines perpendicular which eliminated uh a number of non-conforming conditions on the last application. We also removed the RSIS exception that I mentioned previously. There was a centerline curvature issue on the
previous plan. That exception is no longer needed. Um just quickly on storm water improvements, there was certainly some concerns expressed at the December hearing. Um, so as I mentioned, we removed the grading from the buffer area that allowed us to maintain existing
drainage patterns along the property lines and allowed us to move a lot of the the grading inward from that buffer. Uh, we analyze different points of analysis. I know there were some concerns with the southern and eastern properties. So, we analyze the points of analysis in a little bit more detail to
show that we are reducing peak runoff rates and volumes to the east and to the south significantly. Then obviously to the west uh which is Newton Corner Road, we're reducing storm water runoff to that direction as well. So simply put, we completely comply with NJ78
NJD requirements as well as township ordinances. Uh there's also concern with groundwater mounting. The previous application simply didn't comply with it. This project completely complies with groundwater mounting. There's a significant amount of discussion on the last hearing about what physical lot improvements are going
to be proposed on each individual lot. So, what we did was we looked at each lot, all 24 lots, and we show a a shed, a porch, a sidewalk, a driveway, uh covered awning areas. Um, so we actually show all of the improvements that were
that'll be proposed on each lot. and we broke out every single lot and we provided an exact imperous coverage calculation for every single lot. I know there was a lot of confusion at the last hearing about 800 square feet on some lots versus other lots, but what we did was we designed the patios and decks to
meet the maximum allowable setback requirements for each lot. So, as these uh future lots come online and the the individual property owners submit plot plans to the municipality, as long as their their plan is equal or or less in
size of these decks, then it will be completely compliant. And as I mentioned that we maximize the maximum allowable patio and everything for each lot. So, what you see is the maximum that would be built um
as part of this redesign. The project is completely compliant with zoning in terms of lot coverage, building coverage, setbacks, everything. Uh there is a building height that we will clarify in a minute, but it's actually not a new condition. Um the CME review
letter back in December requested clarification on average grade around these buildings. What we did was we provided an average grade calculation for every single lot. And as I mentioned previously, the eastern buildings on the exhibit um will have walkout basements.
So when you do the average grade around those buildings, the basement or the the rear of the building is lower because it's a walkout basement. However, the street side of those buildings are at grade. But when you average the grade around the building because of that drop off, some of those buildings actually
technically have a building height variance, which 30 ft is allowed. And just in general, most of those are in the 31 to 32 foot range. So, it's a very slight deviation. However, it's required because they are technically walkout basements, but as you drive down the
proposed cartway and the roadway, you'll actually see a standard uh building height. It just happens to be that some of them have walkout basements, which is uh technically why we need a variance. Um, if you don't mind, there's another exhibit right after this.
>> Yep. Perfect. Thank you. Uh, do you mind zooming out just once? I'm not sure if this was marked in the new exhibit list, but >> uh who said that? >> Yeah. So, this is A26. >> Yeah. So, A26 is a sighteline exhibit
prepared my by my office. And basically, this is just a cross-section view of what that existing and proposed grade would look like. Just to tie into what I was just saying about the building height. So, we picked basically the quote unquote worst case scenario. So we cut a cross-section through this and on
the right side of the exhibit you could see the existing building on Lauraai Drive looking towards the proposed development. So what you could see is the property line vertically in the middle of the bottom exhibit and you see that large existing tree line. All of
those existing trees will remain. We're not removing those trees. And then you see a lower landscape understory. Those are all proposed trees. We show those at planting height, but those will all grow to mature tree heights to meet um a similar height as what you see on those
existing tree lines. Then as you work your way to the left of the exhibit, you could see the proposed building. It's really just a two and a half story building, but as you walk out to that basement, you could see how the grade drops off and how we tie in and how subtle that grading is tying into that buffer and the off-site properties.
Previously, they had a 3 to1 slope in that buffer. it would have been basically a sheer cliff right on the property line, but we're keeping the existing grades and completely meeting the requirements for the grading. Uh, as I mentioned, we worked handinhand with the architect to prepare this
exhibit and the new design. We are completely compliant with the previous uh, building design that was presented. The applicant is obviously willing to meet and will meet the uh lookalike ordinance requirement, but with the building setback and the and all the new
design, there there'll be no setback variances of any kind. Uh I did review the signage um testimony that was provided in December. No change to signage. We relocated the monument sign a little bit, but it's completely compliant in terms of setback locations.
Uh but there will be a signed area variance which the architect provided in December. Uh just lastly, we meet the tree removal and replacement calculations. The new design completely complies with vehicle circulation requirements for fire trucks
and emergency vehicles and garbage trucks. And we did have a chance to review the applicant, I'm sorry, the township's updated review letters. I did have a chance to to discuss them with the board professionals. And from a overall standpoint, I believe I addressed most of their questions in my
testimony, but I'd be happy to go over anything in more detail if you'd like. >> Yeah. So, at that point, I mean, we can turn to the board's professionals or the board if you have any questions for Tom or if we missed anything in the review letters. >> So, just confirming that the roads uh
and storm water will all be privately owned and maintained. >> That's correct. And there will be an HOA. Um, you know, obviously we we'll get HOA docs to Mr. mayor to review, make sure all the conditions of the the approval, if approval is granted, are incorporated in the HOA dogs. >> And you would concur that uh or at least
agree on the record that no dens would be converted to bed bedrooms? >> Uh yeah, I think we would we would confirm that. Yes. >> And what about garages? >> Would they be converted to bedrooms? No. No. >> I just wanted to stipulate it on the record.
>> Can Can we It kind of took the words out of my mouth. Um, excuse me if I don't know the proper terminology. I'm going to throw it out there. Is there a way that we could put it like a a deed restriction on that for conversion? >> What what I would recommend is you make
it a condition of approval and that that resolution be filed at the county. >> That the walkout basement included will not be bedrooms. >> Yeah, that's what we've done in the past. Okay. So, and and um >> we would do we would do both. We would record we'd record the resolution of approval. Um we would also make it part
of our um HOA documents again. >> Perfect. >> So >> um so Mr. Chairman um beyond that I do think that Mr. Miller went through all of the points of my letter. Um as the board will recall I had substantial drainage concerns at the last hearing
and a lot of that was due to the disturbance which was going to occur on the Laurelai side. Um I did have the opportunity to meet in the field on the site with the applicant and their team and encourage them to move the
disturbance. So um as far as an engineering perspective, I'm much happier with this design because it doesn't propose that steep slope where you know in my mind water doesn't turn 90°. And so what my concern was was putting that slope in the buffer, that
water was going to sheet down and go to these residents properties. So with this, honoring that 50-ft buffer, not disturbing it, providing the planting provides for more of a progressive grade change that follows the natural pattern. So I am um much happier with this
design. >> Yeah, I would agree. >> So So are we. >> Yeah. >> So the applicant, >> it's much much nicer. Um question on the uh last time there was talk about hauling an enormous amount of fill, but that's you're using the existing balance
within the property now. Are you still bringing hauling in material? >> Uh >> you have to raise the grade some. >> Yeah, the grades still need to be raised um >> to towards the front of the >> Yeah, we're we're pitching the roadways back towards Newton's Corner. We want to keep them away from the east. So there still will be fill on site, but
>> but not as much as it was before. I mean, we're talking like five to 8 ft. I or >> you haven't done a calc on their plan, but if I had to guess, it would be >> quite a bit of fill. So, okay, good. >> Mr. Chair, can I ask a question? >> Yeah, sure.
>> Um, can you just specify on the the buffer? Um, so the plan says it's a 50 foot vegetated buffer. Is that um and it says it they'll be um they will be marked. What what um are like is there
going to be signs along the buffer? How are you doing that? >> Monuments. >> Yeah, I think the the request was to do monuments, right? So So we would we would place monuments around the buffer. >> The monuments are going to be sunken or >> generally. Yeah.
>> So that people eventually won't see them. Is that >> typically we require a split rail fence on that buffer line >> and and we'd be we'd be happy to do that. Yeah, that's fine. We we had discussed that before. So that that would be fine. Um just to uh frankly I didn't know that it wasn't shown on the
plan but just to demarcate where the buffer is in people's backyards. Yes. >> Okay. >> That's okay. >> And then one other question on that. Is is that property part of the HOA or will that be the private homeowners >> um property? >> It's a the way it's drawn it would be
the private home, >> right? I know. >> Yeah. I mean um >> they didn't want them to have sheet trees. I I I think the way that we have the lots laid out right now, it would be that buffer area would be each private homeowner's buffer area, but we could do um you know, similar to what we're doing
with recording the resolution in the HOA documents. Do you typically do like a conservation area or something like that? >> Yeah. So, we we could do that conservation ement in favor of the township to for the buffer. >> I'm going to stop this conversation right here. We don't want a conservation
>> because then that requires this goes on our greenacres rosy and then if anything happens it's on us which happened before where someone put a swing set in a buffer and it came back on us that we either force the guy to remove it or have to go for a diversion at 25 to to
one. So we can call it a buffer. We can de-restrict it whatever we want. It's not going to be a conservation. >> That's fine. Yeah, we'll do uh we'll do some sort of buffer restriction to make sure that people know they can't do things in there, but we won't call it a conservation restriction. >> So, question for you. Um Tom, maybe this
is for you. The the buffer, right? I mean, I guess on the southern side or even the the northwestern first house on Athens Court. I mean, it doesn't look like a hell of a lot of backyard room, right? I mean, to the buffer, right? What are you talking feetwise from the
the end of the building? I mean, >> um, the ordinance, the rear yard setback for those buildings are required to be 25 ft. So, the ordinance requires us to set back the structure 25 ft from that
buffer. So, it's a 25 ft backyard with the maximum size patio. So, if someone felt they didn't want that size patio, they would just have more green space. So is that what I'm reading is you have six feet of lawn between the patio and the buffer, >> but they have 25 ft. So what's required? >> Right. Right. Right. Right. Okay.
>> So they're showing you the max and the patio and 6 ft of lawn. We ask that. >> So but in theory from if you see my cursor from this line to the structure there is 25 ft in there. Okay. >> So a homeowner doesn't need to build this patio. They might decide they'd
like to put in a pool. Um but whatever they put in has to be put in within this area to the buffer that's >> and that that buffer is the split split split rail fence, right? >> That is correct. >> Okay. So if a homeowner moves in there and then just decides they want to cut down the trees in that buffer, what's
like the recourse >> there would be a violation especially with a restriction um >> a township fine that is >> uh they would wind up in court. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Well, it also be an HOA violation. >> It' be two It'd be a couple different types of violations. Yeah. HOA for sure
and zoning violation municipal court >> be like trespassing >> but it is their property >> not trespass but they'd be violating you know they'd be violating HOA rules and regulations and if we if we record something and make it enforceable by the township it'd be a it's a condition of
the of the approval so it' be a zoning violation as well >> okay but it is just to be clear though it is the homeowner's property not the HOA's property that's right yeah >> okay so that should show up as a deed restriction in individual homes deed. Right. >> That's right.
>> And guys, the the way that the ordinance reads for a major subdivision, which is what this is, is that the setbacks are measured off the buffer. So the rear yard setback requirement is 25 ft and they are adhering to the 25 ft. Historically, it
was measured off the property line, which would have been in that buffer. So they could have put a building all the way to the buffer line. That's why years ago, the town amended that to require a major subdivision to measure the rear yard setback off that buffer line to give an individual property
owner the opportunity to put in that backyard space what they would want to put there. >> Okay. >> What is the uh what's the maximum fill height on the site on that far east end there? Um in the most extreme location,
uh existing grade is approximately 78 and our driveway grade is 86. >> Okay. >> So it's 8 ft at its extreme location roughly. >> Gotcha. Does that disparity exist along the the uh southern property line as well? Because I know if you're bringing
up the east side to slope back towards Newton's corner, you're also have a slope going downward at the southern end of the site and would you have how would you resolve that grade? Would it also be walk out basement or does that slope carry into the I know there was an issue before with it carrying into the buffer?
How does that grade resolve on the south side of the >> Yeah, we we're actually we're actually able to tie into existing grades much easier on most of those southern properties. >> Is natural grade just higher there? Yeah, natural grade is roughly elevation 83. Okay. For instance, those backyards
are roughly elevation 84. So, it's a perfectly subtle grade there. Gotcha. >> And then the last two lots on the southern part, which is which are lot 62 and 63, those are technically walkout basements just because that's where the grade starts to drop off more, but
everything else to the west of that is at grade. >> Okay. Thank you. I have a question for our professionals >> on that south eastern property, the large yard. >> Yep. >> Um I guess it's more of a zoning
question, but possibly not. Is that an is it developable for an accessory structure? >> Of course. >> I was just going to ask. So an accessory structure in this town that would just
be a little little bit smaller than the house. So that is that is my question. Um >> we have requirements in the ordinance in terms of accessory structures and how many and the setbacks and what have you and it has to be set back like twice the
height. Um but yeah it's >> I mean you could almost put two accessory structure. What I did hear though, uh, chairman, was they have designed this for showing the max coverage for each of these lots. And what they've indicated is if there's a deviation. >> So they've they've designed this showing
that patio and that shed. Uh, Mr. Goen, you'll correct me if I'm wrong, which gets them to X number of coverage, and they've committed that they won't exceed that. >> That's right. That's what I was just asking, Tom. So anything that's built in that backyard is going to have to be the same that you can see the footprint based on that patio. So that's the
maximum amount of coverage that you would be able to add >> even in that large corner. Is that still approximately an acre? That corner lot there? 43,000. >> That's one >> about an acre. Yeah. >> 1.2 acres. Yeah. >> Okay. >> So that's what they >> What coverage is that? What percent cover? That's not 30 or 40. >> But there again, there's no max coverage
in this zone, which is what we spent time talking about at the last hearing. >> What does it work out to? I mean, >> Mr. Miller, do you know what it is on that lot? >> That lot is 9% impervious coverage. >> Um because it's so large. >> Okay. Okay. So, it's limited to nine. >> That was what I was going to ask about,
Nick, as well because we have these accessory structures almost the size of a house. Yeah. >> And I was wondering if we should put a restriction on those similar to what we're doing with the garage conversions and all that other stuff. But, uh, coverage. >> Yeah. That that's going to be handled by the max coverage, which we're let's, as
Mr. Miller mentioned, we're going to stick to this chart that he has on this plan, which will become part of the resolution, and that'll cap the coverage on each lot. So, if if the board members look I I know it's hard to see. I'm trying to zoom, but this last line is showing the maximum proposed coverage
for each of those lots. Looks like it ranges from 39. >> What is this one? What is this? 85. >> That's 78. I thought so the roadway, right? >> Yeah, it's the road. So that's the road.
>> Um, so essentially, and I believe this is what we committed to last time, we had talked about a coverage of around 45%. Looks like one of the lots is 45.8. Uh, and it looks like that's that's the highest. And it goes down to a low of 20
actually 12 8. But Laura, that's that's including driveway too. Yes. So that's driveway, sidewalk, patio, shed as shown. >> Building >> building, right? >> Correct. That's the maximum overall impervious coverage. And what they've
committed to is that this will be the max coverage for each of those lots. >> So So the the patio and the the shed, that's just graphical just to kind of show. >> That's just so you can see what it would look like with maximum coverage. So what's what's to stop someone from not putting in a patio or shed and still
having a large accessory >> structure because they're they're capped by this max. >> So I mean you could still access >> Yeah. Well, but they're what they're saying is they're not going to exceed the coverage that they're showing. So for example, on that large lot, I think
they've indicated that the proposed coverage they're showing is 9% including driveway dwelling and they will not exceed that. So, and that's including the the hypothetical patio, >> right? But if they take that patio out and shed, it would just be an offsite. So,
>> they they couldn't exceed that existing footprint of the patio and shed >> by way of area. Correct. So, they can put a structure in this area and a fully compliant. >> I mean, that that's kind of where we're going. >> Patio and said, "I don't want it. I want to put accessory structure this same
footprint over here." That's more than half the size of the building. >> Yeah, but it's still only 9% of the lot. I I mean I would defer to the board. I I don't think that's unrealistic. >> How is that lot going to be owned? The the large one. >> It's owned >> privately.
>> It's a It's a It's a house. It's That's part of the home. >> Oh, >> yeah. That's a nice lot. >> Bigger than the other. >> That's the one I would want, right? >> That's what we said, too. >> Yeah. I'll pick We'll pick that one.
>> We could talk after Andy. Let the let the homeowner for sure >> with adding a additional culde-sac are they both uh in excess of the 90 uh 6 foot? >> Yeah, the car the cartway the curb line
of that bulb meets RSI standards as well as the rightway around that bulb. It meets RSI standards. >> So they're in they're in excess. >> It either meets or exceeds. Correct. I I just want to go on the record. I I
think this this design is great. I think he did a great job. Bluebird dances out of the water. Um >> Thank you. >> But that southeastern property is I'm telling you right now, there's going to be another structure on that property and it's concerning to me. I I I've seen
it in this town and I know, you know, there's >> scares me there's gonna be, >> you know, >> I >> Well, their restriction is 9%. I >> I understand that, but in a neighborhood where, you know, residents have been living there and they're going to see
another house, >> people are calling it houses, people are calling it accessory structures. Um, I think it's going to be a problem. 9% could we say 9% and no accessory structure greater than 20% of the primary residence footprint something like that so that
>> yeah I mean >> so you know that they don't have a >> I would like to put some type of restriction on an accessory structure because that's a lot of land to build on and I understand it it's a capped on a percentage but if you you know you move that little patio I mean it's like three
quarters of the size of the house >> yeah I have I have it all right here I Is there any way to absorb some of that lot into the buffer? >> Steve, if you need like five minutes, >> it's just it's just that one lot. >> Yeah. So, I'm saying if we if they would
take if they're all,000 square foot that's 400. So, that's a 20 by 20 access that's a huge accessory structure. That could be a garage. >> If that's if that's a condition you want to do, that's fine. We can leave it at that. We were just checking to see what the requirements were on accessory structures on with the zone. But um in terms of a condition, we're happy to
agree to that. So >> So that was a maximum of 400 ft. Did you say >> I said 20% of res 2,000 foot? That would be 400. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. If somebody wants to build something bigger than that, they can come back themselves and ask for relief. How about that? >> Yeah,
>> that works. >> Yeah. 400 feet still makes a pretty nice garage or man cave. You don't need it any bigger than that. >> And that would just be a physical structure. >> For a physical structure, yeah. So, right, it would be an >> enclosed. And honestly, I would put in
there whether it's a quote unquote temporary structure like a pole barn or a permanent structure because we've had those issues. Yes. Where the temporary structure doesn't get the same treatment as a permanent structure. So, in this particular instance, any accessory structure, whether temporary or
permanent, would have to comply with those requirements. Correct. >> Good. >> Good luck. >> I had an architectural question. >> Yeah, Mr. Gimble. >> Um, I heard you say two and a half stories for the walk out basement.
>> Um, has anybody done that story above grade calculation as far as how bad the grade drops off? >> I mean, >> we're not talking about three story here. We're talking definitely two and a half. two more houses. >> Yeah, it's two and a half from the finished floor up and then the the walk
out basement drops down >> uh approximately 9 ft which is a standard height of a floor. So like a basement is typically like a a 9 foot floor height. So that grade just drops down to meet that 9 foot. So you can walk right out
the back but the the driveway and the garage and the front door are at grade. So when you're on the street, you actually see two and a half stories, but the back of the building, you just have that exposed basement. >> So we we're not talking about more than six feet on the sidewalls as far as that
story definition. >> Yeah, the you know anybody did Cal Architect do that calculation? >> I'm I'm not sure what you mean by sidewall. >> Is it is it more than six feet exposed on like this side? The definition of story above grade is if you're more than
six feet for 50% of the building or if you're 12 feet total any any one place it's considered a story. >> So I I just have to jump in. So I understand that that's a UCCC requirement. That's not an ordinance requirement. >> Talking about stories. I just want to say >> I understand but that's a building code requirement not a zoning requirement. So
here it would be considered two and a half stories regardless of the walkout basement based upon the definition in the ordinance not the UCCC requirements. They do need relief for the total height. And let me be very clear, the
relief they're asking for is.3 feet to 2.8 ft for the various homes because of those walkout basements and the grading in the back. >> That's based off of the average grade. >> Correct.
Corners. Yes. >> Any other questions, gentlemen? Sherry, Jen, Laura, anything? >> Nothing additional at this time, Mr. Chairman. >> Um, do you have any other professionals coming? >> Just uh just our planner. >> Okay. Uh I'll I'll wait till the end because I'm sure there's going to be
some people that might have some questions. >> So, Christine, thanks. >> Thanks, Tom. Uh, I'm sure that everybody knows Mr. >> No, she's got to be sworn in. >> Last time. >> Do you swear the testimony you give will be the truth, the whole truth, nothing
but the truth, the help you got. >> Yes. >> State your name for the record. Spell you last. >> Good evening. It's Christine. C H R I S T I N E CO O F O N E. Business address is 52 Reckless Place, Redbank, New Jersey 07701.
testifying this evening as a licensed professional planner. I've been testifying as such for 30 years in the state of New Jersey, qualified here in Howell and hundreds of other boards throughout the state. My licenses are current and valid. In addition to that, I teach planning and zoning courses for the Rucker Center for Government
Services and I am a courtappointed affordable housing special adjudicator. >> We will accept your credentials. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, >> chairman. So, this is a substantially conforming application. While I was not at the last hearing, I was familiar with those plans and have been familiar with
this site um and the applicant for quite some time. I think if there was a most improved award in planning, we could give it to this site because we've certainly made a lot of improvements over the layout and the drainage to become more conforming and in fact mostly conforming with your ordinance
here in Howell. In fact, the only relief that we require for the homes is as planner beam just indicated is the dimminimous relief for the height variances for just a handful of the properties relating to the grading on site. And the dimminimus has to be
relief for a height. It has to be um the height relief has to be dimminimous. Otherwise, this board wouldn't have jurisdiction. Right? We know that when you exceed the height by more than 10% of what's allowed in the zone, then you get kicked to the zoning board for a devariance. So here we have some dimminimous relief that we're seeking.
What I think is important to note here is that that's a C1 variance in my opinion relating to the existing grading and topography, right? Unique features on a piece of property are um justification under the C1 section of the municipal land use law. But I also think if you look at the C2 section of
the statute, there are a number of purposes in municipal land use law that are advanced by this application. Criteria E of the land use law talks about establishing appropriate population densities. This R25 zone would set forth a density of about six dwelling units to the acre and the
applicant is about 2.47 dwelling units to the acre. So I think the board can rely on criteria E. I also think the board can rely on criteria I. You heard Mr. Mueller testify that while we were seeking some variance relief, the heights would look uniform from the street. And that's important in a
subdivision like this, right? we don't want this the we don't want to be granting relief so that homes are looking like they're out of character with the area. So I think the board can be assured that the streetscape will be um will be certainly uh uniform throughout the property. I think also when you look at the master plan which
was re-examined um just a few years ago, there were some stated goals in there that talked about continuing to provide a stabled and diverse community through a balanced land use pattern and for the protection of neighborhood characters um neighborhood characteristics. I think that this subdivision is certainly
consistent with the established pattern of lot areas. So I think the board can grant the variance relief under both the C1 and C2 section of the municipal land use lot with respect to the height variances. We are also seeking a variance because this zone only allows a
monument or a directional sign of four feet four square feet and ours is proposed to be 10. So we want certainly our sign to be visible so that people can make appropriate driving decisions but also to recognize the community. Right. So, it's a I think 10 square feet
is a relatively modest side signs compared to some other signs in this area. You've got the Wawa across the street and some other commercial activities going on in the general vicinity of this area. So, I don't think that having a 10 square foot sign on
this site is going to have any substantial negative impacts, right? And that's the test. The land use law does not ask you to hold this or any other applicant to a standard that there be junk detriments. just that the benefit of the grant the variance would outweigh any detriment. And here I see no
substantial detriment to the sign variance and the board can look at criteria H which talks about promoting the free flow of traffic but also criteria I which creates a desirable visual environment. I think it adds some level of charm charm community and curb appeal to a community to have a sign
identifying the subdivision's name. So with that being said, I think this application meets its burden of proof for the dimminimous C variance relief that is associated with this applicant. To the extent there are any deficiencies with the quality of our buffer because
it is there in quantity, we meet that 50 foot perimeter buffer. To the extent any of your professionals, Miss Spiro, Miss Beam, or Miss Newman, feel as though we need to fill in there, we're happy to work with them to do that. But as of right now, uh it is our opinion that we are delivering to you a compliant buffer
on this property and I know that that's very important to Howell. So with that being said, statutoily this is a very conforming application to your R25 zone here in Howell and the minimum relief that's required in conjunction with it can be substantiated um under the
positive and negative criteria that I established. >> Thank you. >> You're welcome. >> Nothing further from me, Miss Kafone. >> Thank you. Any questions, gentlemen? Jen, Laura, >> great. >> I'm gonna open this up to the public uh
for questions, comments. Uh please feel free to come up, state your name, your address, speak into the microphone clearly. Good evening. >> Good evening. Uh William Oil, 54 Lauraai Drive. >> Okay. >> I was wondering if you could even pull
up the other >> picture that you had there with the retention. >> The sighteline one. This one. >> Yeah, I think. Yes, that one. Cuz that's my house. The red one running down the hill. >> This one? >> Well, the bottom thing where you show the slope. Um, last time we were here, I
know there was question of grading and I I believe all the water was supposed to be pushed towards the Waw Wa. >> No. >> And >> excuse me, sir. Let me just swear you in. >> Oh, okay. >> You Yeah. Do you swear the testimony you give will be the truth, the old truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Yes, I do. >> Thank you. >> Thanks.
>> But I believe the last time we had a meeting and there was a question about the grading, and you're looking at that, and I appreciate it. And I heard you sir say you actually drove by a site to look at it before you commented on it >> um earlier. Not but particularly
drive and seen that there's sink holes all up and down the street. >> Um the way that that property is pitched, it is not just a little grade down like that. The property grades like this and goes into a retention basin which is right across the street on
Laurelai Drive. We're losing, like I said, uh, sinkholes daily. I'm grading my property to run the water that's coming down as it is without property there. What I ask is, is there any way to do a survey of the people that are living on Laurelai Drive and the way
that water is flowing to see what, you know, especially now there wasn't even going to be walkout basements. Last time we uh were here, I believe it was one large piece of property with one building and because of the change with the grade now, now we have walkout basements and you we're digging into the
ground and I haven't seen anybody even come and knock on my door or anybody on my block saying what what's going you know where where's this water going? Why do we have sinkhole problems? Um, you know, again, like I said, evidently there's going to be a development there, and I understand all of that, but my
question is what's going to do with the way the, you know, it, like I said, Lurai Drive is a mess. >> And it it just has to do with their sink holes. I believe it's the way the water runs. On a good run or when we're getting the snow melting, my driveway looks like a river. It runs down that
way. I'm actually trenching the water down. >> Let me ask you something on Lauraai. So it's not just from this property. Correct. I mean it it's you have a water issue period on that road. >> The entire way the development is it's high here. It's high here and and
everything just kind of grades down to where they built the newer bigger houses. >> Um but again you have a retention basin right across the street where the water's supposed to go. My question is is if we're having this kind of problem now with 24 units and now four subterranean basements put in, has
anybody looked at what that is going to do? >> I guess Steve, do you want to have time? >> No, money come up. >> Uh yeah. So we we >> so we specifically made a point of analysis basically calculating the runoff rate that's going to this point
because as you mentioned it is actually a low point under existing conditions where that common property line is and then naturally the grade continues onto lower lie and then across the street to the east to that existing detention basin. So we analyze the amount of water that's going to this specific point and
what we're doing is we're actually reducing the amount of storm water runoff to that area significantly. We analyze the two-year storm under existing and projected storm rates. So even out to 2100 basically 80 years from now. We did analysis for the two-year
storm, the 10-year storm, and the 100red-year storm. >> Mr. Miller, I I'm going to appreciate this testimony and I'm I'm going to let you go, but what part of this is is that your site was getting lifted um under the prior design and still in this design, you're still lifting the site so
that water and I'm going to let you speak technically, but just to explain, sir, they are still lifting the site to divert water that currently goes to Lauraai towards the front of the site towards Newton's corner. >> I see that. Does anybody also see the other level of it's not just grade going
this way, you have grade coming this way, too. >> Yes, sir. And that and having been out there that that was one of my main issues previously that has black stone that he's got to wash off because you get so much water on coming off. He's got >> that's a current condition, correct? >> Yes.
>> Okay. So, what she's trying to explain is what is going to happen here. And part of the concern was >> allowing more of your natural grade to exist between your properties despite lifting to divert water. So, and I know what you're saying under the existing and I'm going to let Mr. Miller go back
to numbers, >> but um what they're obligated to do is not increase flows. They have to show reduction and not increase flows to any point. So I I can tell you that they're still doing that and they are still lifting the site which was previously
what was provided to divert storm water which currently naturally flows towards Laurelai picking it up to push it towards Newton's Corner. Now as you said there's still the the existing area right we're not going to disturb that buffer anymore. So now there's still natural water that's going to go there
but by virtue of lifting the site to push water towards Newton's Corner um that will occur that there won't be increases. Having said that, Mr. Miller, you can go back through it. I just wanted to break it down for what we're what we're actually doing because he's going to give you numbers and I appreciate
>> and at the end of the day, he's going to testify to it, but I wanted you to understand that they are still lifting and diverting water which previously or today goes to Laurelai and moving it towards the front of the site. >> Sorry, Mr. Miller. >> Yeah, absolutely. Yeah, I I agree 100%
with everything you said. Um, just to keep it simple, under existing conditions, there's a very large farm or nursery, and just generally speaking, probably about half of that nursery goes and drains basically through through your backyard. Now, with the proposed
project, the only water that's being drained in that direction is the very limited lawn and backyards of those buildings. Everything else is being directed to the west. So, we're significantly amount reducing the amount of actual land that's draining to your
property, but we're also reducing the peak runoff rates for all the storm events. And that means we're also reducing the amount the volume of water for all storm events. So, just just for reference purposes, we're reducing under
the smallest storm 6,800 cubic feet, which is a lot of water. We're reducing it by that much under proposed conditions and then projecting it out to the 2100 year uh 100red-year storm. Over 60,000 cubic feet of runoff is being
reduced to your property under proposed conditions. And that's all because we're forcing it all back to the west. Um and it's a significant improvement certainly to all points of analysis, but especially your your backyard there. >> Thank you. Like I said, I I just ask if
maybe before we agree to anything if it could just be looked at again the street and everything that we're talking about because it is water damage. But I thank you for your time. And I ask uh one other thing about the walkout basements. I had heard you mention um no ba uh no bedrooms
>> if maybe it could be verbiage of no living space. >> Well, I don't know that that's we can do that. Like >> I can't have I can't live in my basement. >> Yeah, living space be a living room. I I I I the bedroom is the biggest >> a living space could be definition that
could be a living room would be a living space and >> you can finish basement. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. You're allowed to finish a basement. So no bedrooms I think as far as we can go >> but is it still considered a basement or is it considered a living room? Is it another room when I go to sell my house?
>> Well, it's essentially a basement. I mean it's impounded from the front of the home. So what we're saying is you they can't put a basement in there. A bedroom. I'm sorry. A bedroom. >> Yeah. below grade living space. >> Mhm. Okay. Thank you very much. >> Thank you.
>> Is there anyone else from the public any comments or questions? Seeing none, I will close the public portion. Steve, you have any closing comments? >> I don't. I think the board um you know, you can see we got a much improved plan here. Um really really glad to be
working with Tom on this and uh hopefully the board appreciates the redesign and hopefully you'll vote for approval. >> Yeah, I commend this application. Dynamic did a really nice job with this. Um but I certainly understand the gentleman's comments about the water and
um I think this this design will definitely see not an increase but a decrease of water. But um okay, any comments, questions, final answerations? All right. If not, at this time, I will entertain a motion. Please
state whether you're approving or denying with your motion. >> Could we just summarize all the caveats? >> Yes. With the caveats. >> Yeah. So that no garage conversion the living space no bedrooms in the walk out 20% accessory structures 20% of the
primary residence accessory structures relief on the height >> split rail fence along the buffer >> split rail fence >> meet the look alike requirement >> look like >> uh the buffer would be in a um would there would be a restriction in on the
imposed upon the buffer area so that it couldn't be disturbed. Sure. Yeah. So, with all of those, uh, I will entertain a motion. >> I'll entertain a motion to approve the application. >> Mr. Mercer, with a motion to approve. Do
I have a second? >> I'll second. >> Mr. Wetco. >> Roll call, please. >> Mr. Bo? >> Yes. >> Mr. Freriedman? >> Yes. >> Mr. Carbonic. >> Yes. >> Mr. McNicholas.
>> Yes. >> Mr. Mercer. >> Yes. >> Councilman Rebell. >> Yes. >> Mr. WCO. >> Yes. >> Miss Core. >> Chairman Hazard. >> Yes.
>> Motion carries. Application is approved. >> Thanks everybody. >> Thank you. Have a good night. >> Any master plan updates? The only update that I want to uh share with the board is that given the fact that we're not going to have a meeting in two weeks, um
we are moving the master plan subcommittee meeting to the first to the first meeting like before the first meeting in April. So 6:30 p.m. here on that meeting date, whatever the date is in April that we have our first meeting,
the meeting is going to be then it we may have it back to back depending on what happens at that meeting, but we're going to reschedule the one that scheduled for the 19th to the first meeting in April. >> Okay. And just a reminder, we have a planning board meeting next Monday
uh here. Is it 6 pm? 6 p.m. >> 6 pm here. Uh, please be here. Make every up. If you're not going to be here, please let me or Eileen or Lisa know ASAP. Uh, we do need a quorum to to vote. >> Are we hearing? Jen, are you
>> are we who who is the going to do the presentation? >> Mr. Chairman, I'll be doing the presentation. >> Laura, you're going to be doing it. Okay. Uh, we Yeah, we have to listen to Laura. and please make every opportunity to be here and then we don't have another meeting in March. So at this time uh
executive session Andy any reason? >> Nothing Mr. Chair. >> Okay. Thank you. I I will entertain a motion to adjurnn. >> Motion to adjurnn. >> Mr. Councilman, >> thank you.