Please stand indivisible with liberty. Justice for all. >> Announcement of the sunshine law. In accordance with the open public meetings act, it is hereby announced and shall be entered into the minutes of this meeting that adequate notice of this meeting has
been provided by the following. Posted on the bulletin boards of the office of the township clerk. Posted on the bulletin boards within the municipal complex. Printed in the Home News Tribune and Cranberry Press on December 26, 2025, posted on the Monroe Township
website, and sent to those individuals who have requested personal notice. Madam Secretary, roll call, please. >> Mr. Masters, >> here. >> Mr. Lup >> here, >> Mr. Busman. Miss Carritori >> here. >> Mr. Tanzy >> here.
>> Mr. Jaffy, Mr. Cole, Mr. Jadis, Mr. Mr. Vagani, Mr. Lefada >> here. Okay, zoning board members, we have our minutes from our December sec.
>> Nominations first. >> I'm going to turn it over to council. >> What? >> What do you want? >> We're good. >> Oh, okay. Members of the board, uh the first item in reorganization would be uh the election of a chairperson. Uh at this
point, I would open up nominations for chairperson of the zoning board of adjustment. >> Make a motion. Visa, >> I'll second it. >> All right. Uh are there any other nominations? Hearing none, I have can I ask for a motion to close nominations? >> Make a motion to close. >> Second that.
>> All in favor? >> And if we could have a roll call. >> Mr. Masters. >> Yes. >> Mr. Lup. >> Yes. >> Miss Carritori. >> Yes. >> Mr. Tanzy. >> Yes. >> Mr. Latada. >> Thank you. Yes. >> Okay. Uh we need uh we're going to open
up for nominations for vice chair. Do I have a nomination? >> Make a motion. >> Blue masters. >> Thank you. Do I have a second? >> Sandy. Second. Are there any other nominations? >> Seeing there's none, can I have a motion
to close? >> Motion to close. Second. >> All in favor? >> I roll call. >> Mr. Masters? >> Yes. >> Mr. Lup? >> Yes. >> Miss Carritori? >> Yes. >> Mr. Tanzy? >> Yes.
>> Chairman Lefada? >> Yes. >> Okay. Board members. Uh, we have a nomination for board attorney. Do I have a nomination for that?
like to make a nomination. >> Motion >> motion rather. I'm saying sorry, >> Mr. Villa. >> Okay. Do I have a second? >> I'll second. >> Okay. Are there any other nominations for to for attorney?
>> Okay. I need a motion to close the nominations. >> Motion. >> Second. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I I roll. >> Mr. Masters? >> Yes. >> Mr. Mr. Lupo, >> yes. >> Miss Carritori, >> Mr. Tanzy, >> yes. >> Chairman Lefada, >> yes. >> Thank you everybody.
>> Okay, board members, we have a nomination for board engineer. Do I have a motion? >> Make a motion. Mark Razimo. >> Second. >> Are there any other any other nominations for board engineer?
Can I have a motion to close nominations for board engineer? Madam Secretary, roll call, please. >> Mr. Masters, yes. Mr. Lup, >> yes. >> Miss Carritori. Mr. Tanzy, >> yes. >> Chairman Lefada, >> yes. >> Thank you.
>> Okay, board members, we have a nomination for board planner. Do I have a nomination for board planner? >> Yes. I'd like to make a motion. Christopher Dne, >> do I have a second? >> I'll second. >> Are there any other nominations for
board planner? Seeing there's none, I need a motion to close the board. Motion >> second. Second, >> Madam Secretary. >> Mr. Masters. Yes. >> Mr. Lup. >> Yes. >> Miss Carritori. Mr. Tanzy. >> Yes. >> Chairman Lefada. >> Yes.
>> Board members, we have a nomination or can we have a nomination for board secretary? >> Yes, I'll make a nomination. Uh Laura Zalinsky. >> Second. >> Okay. Are there any other nominations for board secretary? Seeing there's none, I need a motion to close. >> Motion. >> Second.
>> Second. >> Madam Secretary. >> Mr. Masters. >> Yes. >> Mr. Lup. >> Yes. >> Miss Carritori. >> Mr. Tanzy. >> Yes. >> Chairman Lefada. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. I'm looking for
minutes. I need this. That I have to read everyone. >> Um board members in your packet you have the rules and regs for the 2026 year. Do I have a motion to accept them? >> Make a motion.
>> Second. >> Secretary. Roll call, please. >> Mr. Masters. Yes. Mr. Lup. Yes. Miss Carritori. Mr. Tanzy. Yes. Chairman Lefada. >> Yes. and we're just going to cover the dates for all the meetings for this year.
So, we're going to need a motion when they're when I'm done reading them. Okay, just give me one second here. January 27th, February 24th, March 31st, April 28th, May 26th, June 30th, July
28th, August 25th, September 29th, October 27th. There is no meeting in November and December 1st, which would be the only the only oddball the first Tuesday of the month. All the other dates are the last Tuesday of the month.
Do I have a motion to accept those? >> Make a motion. Do we have a second? >> Second. >> Madam Secretary, roll. >> Mr. Masters, >> is that March? Sorry, March 24th, right? >> March 31st. >> 31st.
>> Last Tuesday of the month. >> Okay. Because in the packet, it is March. There's a 20. >> What's on your last page? Well, >> okay. I'm looking at the one before that. >> Go to the one after that should be there. Well,
>> okay. We'll change it, but it is March 31st. >> Yes. >> Thank you, >> Mr. Lup. >> Yes. >> Miss Carritori. Mr. Tanzy. >> Yes. >> Chairman Lefada. >> Yes. >> Okay. I think all the housework is done.
Board members, everyone has a 2026 lay of the land. All our numbers and email addresses for board members and professionals. If not, Laura will get you one or you can get it from Laura. The uh listing of all the names and
numbers are very funny. >> Okay. >> Okay. Um I need approval for December 2nd, 2025 special me special meeting minutes. Do I
have a motion for those? >> I'll make a motion. >> Do I have a second? >> Second. >> All in favor? All in favor? >> Uh, abain. >> Thank you. >> I have to abstain. >> Mr. Masters abstain. >> Yep. >> Okay. >> Okay. Take this.
>> Mr. Chairman, just one uh housekeeping item before we start. Uh application BA5240-23 for TLEX Realy. Uh it was a use variance uh application uh property at 8 Morton Avenue. Uh there was an issue with the
uh form of the notice uh that the applicant mailed and published. Uh so unfortunately the board does not have jurisdiction to hear that matter tonight. That will need to be renoticed and heard at a future date of the board. >> Thank you. Okay. Being that that application
doesn't exist, we're going to go right to application BA-5256-24. >> Mr. Chair, that application is ready. Uh, good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. Congratulations on on new appointments. Uh,
>> bear with me for one moment. Okay. Again, Walter Toto on behalf of the applicant of Joseph Corvina of Collins Land Care. Uh the subject property is 223 Oldford Road. Uh of course in Monroe County. Mr. Chairman, I
I may defer to Mr. Molo on this, but my understanding is that the focus of tonight's uh hearing is limited and it's limited to uh the issue of whether race judicata applies to this application. Uh
as you may recall, Mr. Chairman, in November of 2023, uh the board voted 4 to three uh in favor of the application, but of course needing five votes for the use variance. The use variance was denied. So the question to the board tonight is among
other things whether this application has substantial changes changes uh that are substantial enough to warrant us moving forward and I suspect and of course this is your call to make Mr. Chairman with the board but if the board were to agree with my position that there are substantial changes and I have
a couple of witnesses uh that will help us uh along that path that we would then be heard at a future meeting of the board for the merits of the application. >> Okay. Council, can you just explain briefly to the board members what rescue to carter is and how it applies here if
it does apply? >> Sure. So, essentially, as Mr. Toto indicated, um the application is before you this evening. It is um for the same property uh with the same applicant as a prior application heard by this board.
Um there is a doctrine called resjudicata and actually a decision was made on that prior application to deny the application. It was a use variance. It received four affirmative votes. It needed five. So um essentially under the
doctrine of res judicata, the board is not capable of hearing the same application twice. Once you make a decision, it's heard on its merits. That application can't come before the board again. So um in order for res judicadu to apply to bar this application this
evening, uh there's five items which would need to be demonstrated. And the first is that the current application is substantially similar to the prior matter. Uh the parties are the same. There's no substantial change in the zoning ordinance or the character of the area surrounding the property. The prior decision must have occurred on the
merits. So you might have heard it to its entirety and made a decision not it came before you but they withdrew it or um you you didn't dispose of for some other reason. And then uh the prior decision must involve the same property uh and uh be presented to the same board
which is the zoning board of adjustment which previously heard it. So I'm certain that uh Mr. Toto uh has um an argument to make on behalf of his client for why that doctrine would not apply and why the board would be capable of hearing this application. Um based upon
communications I've received. I know there is at least one attorney for a group of neighbors who would uh argue against uh Mr. uh Toto's position that res junicata does not apply. So that's where we are for this evening. Um you
know and ultimately it's the board's determination on whether or not uh those five items are present and res judicata would apply and bar the hearing of the application. >> Before we continue, we'd like a copy of the transcript, please. Of course, Mr.
Chairman. Absolutely. As soon as I have it. >> Yes. Uh, so to narrow things even a bit further, my focus tonight is are on or is on elements number one and number three of what Mr. Vinolo just recited. That being that this second application,
which I'll refer to as the new application, is substantially is not substantially similar to the first or the old application. I'll refer to it as the old and the new. And the third element uh is that there are substantial changes in the application uh itself. So
to that end, Mr. Chairman, I'm going to call Mr. Graina who is the owner and the applicant and then subsequently Laura Tatton from Crest, our engineer, and Mr. Remza, our project planner, to wrap things up. So Joe, if you would come on up.
Just got to go down there. >> You have to decide questions from the public at the end of everything. It's probably the best. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Good evening, sir. If you could just raise your right hand for me. Do you swear the testimony you're going to provide is the truth, all truth, and
nothing but the truth? >> Yes. If you could state your name, spell your last name, and give us your address for the record, please. >> Joseph Graina, G R A V I N A 223 Old Forge Road, Monro Township. >> Joe, uh, you were a part of the last
hearing before the zoning board, uh, with regard to the use variance on this property in November of 2023, correct? >> Yes. >> And you testified at that hearing? >> Yes. >> Yeah. Okay. Um my argument to the board is that the
most substantial change is that one of your business uses has now been eliminated. Um specifically that of the tree removal business that you had once conducted. Uh can you can you uh confirm that the tree removal aspect of the business has been eliminated?
>> Yes, I I sold all the equipment off. >> Okay. And can you just expound on that when explain to the board when that all happened? >> Mr. the total. Could we just get that mic a little bit closer? >> Yeah, of course. >> Thank you. >> What was the question again? >> The question with was with regard to
when the tree removal part of the business was uh was eliminated. >> It all been done was done over over this year. This past 2025. >> Okay. >> During 2025, I sold all the equipment off. And my other argument to the board
would be that you um have access to another property. Is that correct? >> Yes. >> Okay. And where is that property? >> In Helmeta. >> Okay. Specifically where in Helmeta? >> For Main Street in Helmeta. >> Okay. And you have a lease on that property? >> Yes.
>> And when did you sign that lease? >> I signed the first lease to rent a just a lot um 20 August of 23 and last March. of 25 is when I signed a lease to rent the part of the building. >> And how has that lease allowed you to
change the use of the current property of the old forge property? >> I have a place to store all my equipment now. >> Okay. So, let's get into that. Um, when you last testified, my reading of the transcript shows that you at one time were asking for
permission to have nine trucks at the Old Forge property. I know in our application on the site plan or on the use variant sketch, we indicate that the old proposal was for six. Can you clarify that at all? Was it six trucks? Was it nine? How many trucks were on
site? >> I've own nine altogether, but I don't think all nine were ever on the site at one time to see. >> Fair enough. And now with this proposal, with the new application, how many trucks are you proposing on site? >> Two. >> Okay. So, two trucks. And what types of trucks?
Most likely they're going to be a Ford F550. >> Okay. And does anything accompany the trucks? >> There should be landscape trailers with them. >> Okay. And now this is a question that Chairman Lefado brought up during the last hearing. How many trailers during
the last application did you have? >> Four. >> Okay. And how about now? >> Two. >> Two on site. Do you also have two in Helmeta? >> Yes. >> Okay. So, you still have the four, but you've got two in Monroe and two in Helmeta. Correct. I only use two on a daily matter. So,
>> okay. Um, >> just very quickly, uh, Joe, are you still proposing a portage on the property? >> No. >> Okay. How will employees access the, uh, what kind of what will they do for if they need to use the bathroom? >> If they need to use a restroom, they use
the one in my home. >> Okay. Let's get let's talk about the number of employees. In the last application, do you recall how many you were proposing that came to the site in the summertime? >> Between 10 and 15.
>> Okay. And what is the proposal now for the summertime? >> At the most five. >> Okay. Uh who primarily and you say at the most on a on a regular basis, would it be less than five? >> It depends if they carpool. They sometimes they carp pull together, but
the main three people that are going to be coming to the site every day is my operations manager and my two crew leaders. >> So, operations manager and two crew leaders and they would and and this is only in the summer, correct? >> Yes. >> And they would end up taking the two trucks that we just mentioned. >> Correct.
>> Okay. Not three trucks, but two trucks. >> Two trucks. >> So, presumably one would go there'd be a pair in one truck and someone would drive the other truck solo. >> Correct. >> Okay. Um with in the wintertime uh the old proposal was for how many
employees to come to the site? >> Five to six. >> Okay. What about now? >> Zero. >> Okay. Why is it zero? >> Because of all the trucks are stored restored in the winter time at the yard in Helmeta and that's where they would be reporting for work when they leave.
>> Okay. Um, hours of operation in the summer have not changed. >> No, they remain the same. >> Okay. And if there's no one coming in the winter because they're all headed to Helmeta, so there are no hours proposed in the in the winter for Old Forge.
>> Correct. >> Okay. Um in the last hearing in the for the old application Joe uh you testified about uh storing herbicides on site. Uh what is the proposal for the herbicides now
for the new application? >> They'd be stored on location in Helmeta. >> So you wouldn't store any herbicides uh herbicides in uh Monroe. >> Correct. >> Okay. Do you still have the same answer as to whether or not waste is generated on
site at Old Forge? >> Minimal waste. Most 90% of it's household. >> Okay. So, your accommodation is for the household garbage essentially. Okay. Um, and is it also accurate that there are no deliveries still to this site?
>> Correct. >> Okay. And lastly, there is no accommodation for material storage on site still. >> Correct. >> Okay, Mr. Chairman, I have nothing further for Mr. Garina. >> What I think we're going to do is I think we're going to get all your
>> testimony out. >> Of course. >> Before we get the questions of the board, before we get the questions potentially from the public. >> So, um I guess if you're finished with your first witness, we'll go to your second one. >> Sure. Laura, if you would. >> Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> Thanks, Joe. >> Thank you. I need a little help. There we go. >> All right. If you could raise your right hand, you swear the testimony you're going to provide is the truth, all truth, and nothing but the truth. >> I do. >> If you could state your name, spell your last name, and give us your address,
please, for the record. >> Yes. Lauraai Totten, Crest Engineering, Associates, Inc., 100 Reich Drive, Milstone Township, New Jersey. My name is spelled L O R A L I T is in Tom O T E
N. and I graduated from Lehigh University. >> We'll accept your credentials. >> Thank you very much. >> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> Laura, you understand the purpose of tonight's hearing. Correct. >> Yes. >> So, please expound if you would on the on the substantial changes uh to this application from what we're referring to
as the old >> Yes. There are uh several changes. As you know, the site contains a house and two buildings. Um and it has access to Gabaldi as well as to Old Forge. So the proposal is to close off the access to
Gabaldi by planting a series of green giant arbivites across where the entrance is. Now additionally the impervious cover is going to be reduced because there's less equipment to store. So that behind the building when you're
looking at the property on the left, the large building in the back will be reduced to only provide access to an overhead door that's in that building. Uh those are the the main changes. Um we're reducing the amount of equipment
being stored on site. As you already heard, the impervious coverage is being reduced from 59.6% to 53.2%. And so those are the main site changes. We're still proposing additional landscaping around the perimeter of the
site. And in the past 2 and 1/2 years, all the landscaping that was planted already by Mr. Garina has grown substantially because most of it green giant arborites. >> Okay. Uh Mr. Chairman, nothing further
from Miss Ton. Bring it next. Mr. Ramsey. Thanks Laura. Do you swear the testimony you're going to provide is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> If you could state your uh state your name, spell your last name, and give us your address, please, for the record.
>> Yes. Um, good evening. Mark a Rema. Uh, last name is spelled R E MSA. address is 10 Deubberry Court, Mal Laurel, New Jersey. >> We'll accept his credentials. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mark, please uh expound and with a focus
on the use changes. Uh please provide the board the benefit of your your planning testimony. >> Yeah. So, um uh I listened to Mr. Graina's testimony and and Lauraai Cotton's testimony. Um, essentially what I've heard from from a planning
perspective is that the um applicant has uh changed the um uh type of uh commercial use, commercial service use on the property. Um where before uh to summarize uh it was essentially uh all
the crews and all the uh employees would come to the site and uh uh pick up the equipment and trucks and trailers and go out and do their um landscape maintenance and then return. Uh now what
I'm hearing is essentially it's the uh uh operator um Mr. Graina meeting with his supervisory folks uh 3 to five folks uh in the morning. Uh they uh take instruction and then they leave with the two trucks and trailers and then they
return. And so uh no longer is there uh the um uh portagon on the site for all of the other employees. Uh there's so few employees uh that will be visiting the site. uh they will be using the um uh uh restroom inside uh Joe's house.
Uh also um in terms of the types of storage uh it's reduction no herbicides uh are uh within the um uh within within the property. Uh and also uh no longer any kind of waste
would be generated by the business. It's now just household waste. uh no deliveries and then also the significant uh change on the site plan is where before used to have access to both streets Gabaldi Avenue and Old Forge Road. Now
it's been elim uh uh access has been eliminated to Old Forge Road uh because there's such fewer uh vehicles uh visiting the site and then ultimately there's also a reduction in the impervious surface because they no longer need all that surface because
they're not having all the different trucks and equipment parked on the site. So in my opinion this in summary is a substantive change. It's a reduction in intensity of abuse uh from what was uh pre pre uh uh on the old application
that was previously uh uh before you. >> Thanks Mark. Mr. Chairman nothing further >> speak just Mark could you just touch back on old forge did you say something about illuminated or >> no eliminated >> access is eliminated. Okay. Was that the
road that the last time they wanted to use in the back of the property? >> Correct. >> Okay. >> I think >> Yeah, that's Gab Baldi. No, Gab Baldi is the road in the back. >> Garaldi is the road. The road in the back that I think last time they wanted to gravel so they can enter and exit
from there and not come through their driveway. That is correct. >> So that's off the table. That's off the table. >> So now they'll be coming in and out from the homeowner's driveway. >> Correct. That's correct. And the idea is that it's now limited. All only all he has is the two trucks as opposed to the
six perhaps up to nine, but in the old application, let's just call it six for fairness sake. Uh with a limited amount of employees coming to the site and none coming in the winter. >> Okay. >> Thank you. Thanks, Mark. No further witnesses, Mr. Chairman.
>> Thank you, Chris. Right. >> Start off with Chris. uh he's he's new here so I'm just getting used to him. So Chris feel free to uh read any paperwork that you provided for this board and for the public to hear. Thank you.
>> Sure. I'll just stick to the residueata issue here which I I don't know if I can say much more than has already been presented to you uh other than offer my opinion here. I won't get into anything on the actual use variances. But it it does seem to me they've made although I was not here for the original application two years ago. uh it does
seem to mean that they've made quite a few uh substantial changes. I don't know that it's necessarily changing the character of the proposed juice, but certainly it has lessened the intensity by quite a bit. Um the other thing that I I think needs to be considered here
the entire purpose of res judicata so you're not hearing the same application over and over and over again. They can't just come back and say we made this one little change now tried or you got a new board member. Let's see if this other board member wants to vote in favor of us and we get five instead instead of four. And I have not seen the resolution
denying the previous application, but I think it'd be wise to consider uh the reasoning behind the I'll call it a denial, but the not quite approval of the 4 to3 vote and what was the reasoning that the this did not pass and have that there have been any changes to that. And I don't know, I was not here.
Maybe the board members know know what was going on at the time four years ago. But just looking at the application on on the merits itself, it seems to me that they have made enough changes that it is a different application or not exactly the same application that there is new things to consider. They've cut
off access from the rear drive. U although from what it just sounded they were almost proposing to cut off access from both streets which would really drastically have changed the application. I'm Mark said he said I'm kidding. >> We did clarify. >> I understood that he he said the wrong street. >> Yes. Yes. Thank you. But um my my
general opinion here, although it's up to you to there does seem to be enough changes that this would uh warrant rehearing the application or not sorry not rehearing the application but hearing this new application because it is different from the previous application and just as a minor point of
clarification there I don't want that to be interpreted as any sort of endorsement of the application on the use variance itself but in terms of just uh hearing the application a new as a new application and a different application I think it meet that threshold of being different enough where you're not just hearing the
same testimony over and over again. And again, I don't think it's a different application in character. Although the removal of the tree removal business probably reduces the amount of equipment on site, still basically a landscape business in in a residential zone in a residential area, but the proposed intensity of the use is is substantially
lower. >> Thank you. Mark, do you have anything to add to this before we go to the board members? Uh, I would just add one thing with regard since they're cutting off Garab Baldi Avenue access and utilizing Old
Forge Road, the size of the vehicle and the driveway. Um, maneuvering into the driveway is um, can the truck that you're proposing make the turns in and out of that driveway on Old Forge? I get some testimony on it.
>> Life Yeah. Yeah. >> Yeah. No more life on. That's understood. >> Joe, you heard Mr. Razimo's question, right? You're still under oath of >> correct? >> Yeah. Go ahead. >> Yes. So, we've been doing it all year cuz every time the guys came to my house
this year to cut the grass, that's how we'd be coming in and out of the property. So, >> what what type of truck? >> It's a a 550 with a trailer. >> Okay. >> A landscape trailer. And every time they came to the house to do work at the property this year, they would come in through the front because we had no other access.
>> Thank you. All I had >> any board members have any questions? >> Yeah, Mr. Tandy, >> just one question. In in the winter operation, >> get closer to the mic, please. >> No, it was on. Just get closer.
>> In the winter operation, uh the two trailers that you keep there during the summer, what happens with those? >> They'll be stored in building a >> Okay. But during the summer, where are they stored? to be attached to the back of the trucks >> trucks. Okay. Okay.
>> Just to clarify, uh, Mr. Tany, in between buildings A and building B. Correct. >> Correct. Okay. >> And it might not be every day or often, but sometimes there'd be a trailer stuck to the truck. >> Any other board members? I do have one question. Um,
recalling the the application from last time, um, there was statements made with respect to, uh, I guess some sort of a hardship if they have to go elsewhere or move the business, this and that. I'm a little
lost while we're renting property. and you're relocating everything to that property, but you're not moving your main business to that property if you're taking the time to rent property. >> There are limitations there. Also, Mr. Leaf, I actually, full disclosure, I
I've represented that uh individual in Helmeta, not as it relates to Mr. Graina, but I know for for a fact that there are also limitations uh at that property. what's happening out there is permitted, but I don't think they could
the the uh the improving the property to the extent of having, you know, a 3,300 and a 2,300 foot building. I don't think that's feasible out there that the buildings are small. It's limited. There may even be wetlands considerations. Uh at least as it relates to improving the
property to the extent that this property is. >> I don't know the property is the first hearing that he ran on. What I my my only question is if we transitioned a decent portion of the business to that property, >> why not just take the balance of it and
you know >> Yeah, please. Yeah, sure. >> I'm just trying to understand that, you know, we're going to hear this application. We're going to go through the process. >> It's a financial situation. Renting a yard space isn't expensive. I could afford that $1,500, $1,200 a month. to
rent office space in a building. It's cost me way over over $3,300 a month more. So, I don't want to spend $50,000 a year to rent a place when I have a suitable place at my house. >> Joe, there was also no uh buildings to
store your equipment. >> Yes. Yeah. Like I if I uprooted everything from my business, I have nowhere to store things in the offse to keep things out of the weather >> at the helmet property. >> At the helmet property. >> Okay. I don't recall from last time like do we do emergency 24-hour work? No, I I
don't recall. No. No. Okay. >> Okay. Any questions? Uh I'm going to ask you to have a seat and we're going to open it to the public in case anyone from the public wants. Thank you. So I guess uh this young man is
standing. We're going to start with him first. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh >> you're going to need to use a microphone, please. That was on. >> What do I know? >> Dave, thank you. >> Well, you could put that on your lapel. We need that one. That one's for the
court stenographer. We need the one in front of you for for our records. Okay. We're going to decorate you tonight. A lot of things. >> Thank you. Appreciate it. >> All right. >> Um, David Lansky from the law firm of Shammy Shiperski on behalf of the
Buffalolinos who are the neighbors who live directly across the street. uh from the subject property. Uh you may recall I was here also uh on behalf of the same objectors a couple years ago when this application was first brought. Um and I have um with
respect to the the race judicado argument um a few documents that I'd like to hand out and um I can present them either directly to the board or through Mr. Rem who is the planner. Um
because >> why don't you tell us what they are and then we'll hear from Mr. Toto on whether or not he wants you to establish a foundation for those documents coming in. >> Yeah. The first the first documents the um proposed site plan from 20 I I used
the 2023 which is when the hearing was although the resolution was adopted in January of 24. >> Call that 01 currently for identification and you'll decide or >> no objection. Okay. >> The second one is the uh site plan
application with the current application for um comparison sake. >> So call that O2. >> Uh that one I just marked on the top of >> just don't walk too far with that mic stuck to your >> 2026. >> No, the mic on your shirt. >> Yeah. Watch it.
>> Yeah. You want to take that off before you move around? Yeah. >> I'm sorry. O2 is the new application. O2 is the is the new site plan. >> New site plan. Fair enough. >> And just for the record, I'm looking from all the way over here and and are they is there an area that has yellow highlighter on it?
>> There is. And I was going to just describe that those are >> okay. So they they are the the the app the the plan subject to some modification that you're going to tell us about in a second. >> That's correct. >> Awesome sauce. I just want to make sure we understand what these are. >> Do we have any for the board members? You're
>> I do. There's >> Okay. >> Okay. Okay. Eight copies here. >> Kevin, if you don't mind, please. Thanks. >> Kevin's on it. >> Oh, yeah. It's 01 and 02. >> Yeah. >> Walter, did you get both? >> 01 is 23. O2 is we'll call it 26 for
identification. Sir, >> I have 03 which is just a copy of the resolution. >> Okay. >> Yeah. No objection. >> I'll get it in. >> Thank you, sir. And and actually
I believe that the board probably has a copy of the resolution because I believe Mr. Toto submitted it with the application. Um >> I believe so. >> Yeah. So if you want you can you can forgo 03 and you can just refer to it at your heart's content because it's already part of the board's uh record
for this application. >> You got it. try to preserve some trees, although they're probably already dead. >> You got the copies already. They're >> gone already. >> Yeah. If only we had known. >> And then I I had um 04, which is a copy
of the public notice that was given in 2023. >> All right. So, we'll call that 04 because we we got rid of 03. But >> I have one one question here before we go crazy. 23 is showing the new diagram
and 26 that's labeled here is showing me a portage John and everything else was which was the original. So how are we doing this? >> 26 revised >> come up and look just we're on the same page. >> Well I'm sorry council
>> I'm sorry. >> Can you please explain to me you label this 2026 and it's showing the porter john and everything and that's the >> to be removed. I think it says Portiga John to be removed. >> Yeah. >> Could it be the other way around? >> Dave, you have 26.
>> No, cuz in in the 2023 application, the port of John was to would would have remained. And frankly, I don't know that the port John ever showed up on that application. I think it just showed up in testimony as people started talking about what was going on on site. So, I
think now we've we've identified its location and identified its location and said it's going away. >> Okay, my bad. >> All good. No worries. >> Sorry. >> And these were these were the uh applications that were on file town. >> Yeah.
>> Um sorry. O So 04 is the 2023 notice. >> Yep. and 05 would be the 2026 notice. >> Yep. >> No objections. Thanks. I can leave these.
So the the highlighted section on the two site plans 01 and O2 were highlights that um I had added um just to point out um specifically
what the u similarities are between these applications. um for the record and um what was originally proposed as per the site plan application and as set forth in the resolution versus
some of the things that were testified to just for comparison sake. Um I would also call the the board's attention uh in the resolution which I think the board plan planner had indicated
um that it would be important to determine whether or not there's a substantial deviation in this application. not in terms of of whether or not there's one or more employees or one or more trucks there because that's really
not substantial to the use variances that were sought. And the board in its resolution, which begins on page 20, identified the items that were important to its decision, to its determination.
And those points that were important to the board dealt primarily with whether or not this particular property was particularly suited to have two primary uses, single family residential home and the
landscaping business. And the board concluded that because the R60 zone only allowed for single family homes that and this property could be used for
that purpose that the applicant could not meet that standard. The applicant simply cannot meet the standard. Um that this property is particularly suited to have two primary uses. Um the board also indicated that the property again the
overall size which hasn't changed was 66,000 square ft just slightly more than the 60,000 square ft minimum required for the zone and that therefore again the site could not meet the standard for
two uses with the buffering that's required for commercial uses. None of that has changed. the substantial dimensions of the property haven't changed. The uh two uses of the property as a landscaping business and as a
single family home. That's what was significant and that's what this board found as memorialized in the resolution. Um the board rejected the arguments very similar to to what's being made today. And um and then I would also point out
that with the case of race judicata that what the board has to consider is not whether or not everything's identical but in the terms of a use variance whether or not the changes were for the good or for the bad as
compared to the standards for the zone and as compared to the standards for a use variance. So, for example, if you look at 01, notwithstanding the testimony, the site plan that was presented to the board and frankly is
referenced in the resolution called for one truck to be parked on the site, not six or nine or some of the other testimony. Yes, there were some trucks that were going to be parked in the garages, but only one would be outside.
The current application O2 references the two tandem trucks basically the trucks with the the trailers that would be re residing between the two buildings and that frankly
nearly blocks the parking for the employees that is all the way in the rear of the property. So you'll see that there's five parking spots for employees that were proposed for the 11 to 15 employees previously and there's still those same five
spots. The number of trucks have increased from what the original site plan was one to two. The removal of the portage John I would submit is probably a a bigger negative than anything. You
have employees walking around this property without a place to go to the bathroom. There was concern that the door was slamming. There was concern that there were smells that come from a portagon. But it's better to have a portagon than no bathroom whatsoever. And to suggest that employees are going
to go into someone's personal residence when they have children is just incredulous. I've never heard of a commercial business that didn't have its own bathrooms. And we raised that point two years ago and it's part of the
resolution that said that, you know, if you're going to have a separate second business on this property, you have to accommodate the employees. You have to give them a place to relieve themselves. Um, and the other thing I would say on that regard is
this property is serviced by a septic system that was designed for a residential home, not for commercial use, not for five employees, not for 10 employees, not for employees having to go to the bathroom. And it certainly doesn't make sense to me that this
property because it's on septic is certainly not suitable for the two uses because you can't provide that bathroom for the employees. You can't provide that bathroom for the business of the landscaping. I would also point
out for purposes of the record that again the the resolution which beginning on page 20 sets forth the reasons that this board uh denied the application. There's not one mention
in any of those conclusions and basis for the decision that talks about tree removal. That was just something that wasn't important to the board to even in
conclude that that was a additional use that would warrant uh a denial. That what was laid out here was the fact that it's a residential zone. that it would disturb the neighbors to have these trucks
coming in and out and engines revving uh as trucks came in and out, as employees came on the property, as employees walked the property, that there wasn't sufficient buffering. All of the things that are laid out in this very well-drafted resolution that gives us
the context for what the board did. There's nothing in this resolution that talks about any of the items as being significant to the decision of the board as um as was just testified to these
these minor differences. So, and the other thing that I think is incredibly interesting to point out and um at the first hearing, the board
raised the issue of what if Gerald Baldi Avenue was closed because it's in essence a paper street that Monroe uh accesses, right, that the township can access and the applicant
The applicant's attorney and their planner all testified under oath that should Gabaldi Street be closed that the landscaping business would be discontinued on the business on the property. It would be discontinued.
That's what they testify to because this site could not accommodate a landscaping business without that access from the rear because their argument was it hasn't changed that this property
should be considered bifurcated with the residential use to the front and the commercial use to the rear and that the board should consider it as two as allowing two businesses on one parcel
because of that bifurcation, that dissection of this property. Now, we're skewing that. We're saying that all of the trucks and all of the business and all of the um uh
detrimental effects of having two uses and having a business are going to be spread throughout the entire parcel, which means it's a worse application from a use standpoint than was presented
to this board two years ago. And for for those reasons, and I know there's other factual testimony that that some of the uh members of the public want to to bring up, um but I think it's it's obvious from the site
plan applications that were presented initially that we're hearing today, from the notices that were presented, that this is really two use variances, right? The first use variance is to allow two principal uses, a business and a
residential on one parcel. And the second use variance is to allow a business landscaping business that's not permitted in the zone. So there's two use variances, neither of which are any different in this
application than they were in the original application. >> Mr. Toto, I'm going to give you a chance to respond. >> Sure. >> My question to you is, would you be able to hold off with responses? So, I want to get the public up. I think I think I
started this wrong. I should have had their representative come up. I should have gotten people from the public who we can hear their opinion before we got into legal mumbo jumbo between two attorneys. >> I I would my my response would be brief uh to Mr.
But I think his argument about Gabaldi works in my favor. It lends credence to the fact that this application has changed that substantially because as it relates to whether it's the bathrooms, access to Gabaldi, we have changed the
use and the application so substantially that we don't care about Gabaldi anymore. And by the way, if that was a condition of approval, had the application been approved that you if access to Gary Baldi was ever shut down, the business would have to cease. That'd
be one thing. But we're not having that argument. What Mr. Loski is posing is a hypothetical. So the employees, it's such an inn and out that they're just not there that often and they're not there for long periods of time. So whether an owner occupier, an
owner, landscaper, owner contractor wants to use um the have his employees use the facilities, that's certainly up to him. Whether why the bathroom is necessary for this limited limited use for the employees, uh uh it makes no sense to me. And as far as the prior
application, we're not increasing the trucks. He talked about having as many as nine trucks on site and six to park in various areas. What why that wasn't shown on the plan, I do not know. And there certainly we're not talking about tandem trucks. The description is they were F F550s.
>> Yes. >> Um so and those are not tandem dump trucks which are substantially different and more intense. Um so that's all I have just for now, Mr. Chairman. >> Okay, council. We'll get back to you. We're not going to cut you off just yet, but I do want to hear and and who did
you say you were representing? >> Uh the Buffalo Mr. Mr. and Mrs. Buffalino. >> Strictly the Buffaloos. >> Correct. >> Okay. So, you're going to be their representation. They're not going to have an opportunity to come up to speak because you're representing them. >> Other than I can I have no intention of
calling them for purposes of the race argument, >> right? But if this were to proceed to a hearing and you wanted to profer testimony of your client, certainly you'd be able to do that. >> Thank you. Okay. So, anyone from the public wishing to be heard on this
application, what we've heard up to this point, please come forward and we'll get you sworn in and we'll get some statements. >> And and just, Mr. Chairman, I would I would indicate that for the purpose of public comment now, we're hearing comment on the resjut argument, not on the substantive nature of the use
variance application. Correct. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> I just want the public to understand that when they come up, maybe we'll just briefly explain it to them. Don't be afraid. Just come right up, sit down, or stand up till we get you sworn in. >> If you could just raise your right hand
as you're sitting. If you do you swear any testimony you provide is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. >> Yes. >> And if you could state your name, spell your last name, and give us your address for the record. Please speak into the microphone and speak loud because it needs to pick you up. Uh, my name is Raqua Danish, spelled D A N I S H the
last name. I live on 230 Old Forge Road. Did >> you get that? >> You can sit. You can move closer to the mic. It doesn't hurt. Don't worry about it. We're good here. Okay. Just so you're clear, as our attorney indicated, we're here to listen
to the public with respect to the rescue to Carter, which is if they made substantial changes to even proceed to hear this application. So, anything that you say has to be pertaining to that. Okay. >> I I think that what I want to say is that the application hasn't changed.
It's still a residential area and they're proposing a business. They're also bringing uh unknown people to the area. Uh it's a it's a street filled with children and you know having these people there at any time of the year
could be dangerous. And also the fact that having a landscaping business in an area where there's residential properties will bring the property value down substantially. And there is there is
proof of that because we've spoken to realtors and other >> objection to hearay. >> Okay. She's allowed to opinion. We we we understand certain things. Go ahead. Continue. >> Sure. >> Um also just like the if it's an isore
if there's things there's things parked on the property that considered an isore to the the street. um cuz there's mostly residential vehicles parked there and there's these big vehicles there. Then also coming in
and out of the property. It's a two-lane road that goes uh fairly like 40 m an hour if there's going to be accidents or things like that happen due to this um business ex existing on this property.
>> Okay, just a quick Miss Danish, thank you for uh testifying. When did you purchase your property? >> Um, >> when did you purchase your property? >> About two years ago. >> Okay. In 2024.
>> Yeah. >> What time of the year? Do you recall that? >> Uh, maybe like December or January, like January, early January >> of 2024. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Nothing further. >> Okay. Anything else you'd like to say? No, I think that um businesses shouldn't
be allowed in a residential zone which we we purchased. Um and if it's not zoned for it, then the application hasn't significantly changed. >> Okay. Thank you for your comments. >> Thank you. >> You're welcome. Anyone else in the
public wishing to be heard? Please come forward. >> Good evening. >> Good evening. I could swear you in quickly if you could raise your right hand. You swear any testimony you provide is the truth, all truth and nothing but the truth. I do. If you could state your name, spell your last name and give us your address, please. >> My name is Daniel Taminia. T U M M I N I
A. And I live about 42 McFallen Circle in Monroe. Um I wasn't here for the first hearing. So u but as opposed but I was listening to this gentleman and he made some some valid points. Um, it was
changed substantially from what I hear, but it it sounds like it was changed for the not for the better. Okay. Um, I'm a small business owner. I have a construction company since 2004. I have small equipment and I wouldn't
even think about putting trucks or anything on my property and I have a bigger property than he does. So, I just don't understand. I don't understand his thinking. I mean, you you have, like you said, you have a
house. I mean, you have a building. Why not put everything there? There could be a little office, you know, you don't have to have a fancy office. You have a little office in the, you know, where where our trucks are. It could be a 5 by10 office unless you're
seeing clients. I don't know. Um, but also like she said, common sense, you're eliminating a porta party. Okay, you're not going to let I don't think anybody would let any worker come in their house and use their bathroom every single day if they have to. Especially if they
landscapers, full of mud, this, that. How long is that going to last? As far as trucks are concerned, who wants to listen to trucks early in the morning? No one said the time. There's no time in the winter, but what is it in the summertime? What are the hours in the
summertime? Are they 7 o'clock, 8:00? No one mentioned the time. If it's 7 o'clock in the morning and you have diesel trucks started, whether it's 1 2 3, it it's it's it's annoying. It's a nuisance. I mean, granted, whether you have a $100,000 home, a million-doll home, I don't think any homeowner wants
to come to Monroe and and listen to this, listen to that. I feel for the gentleman. Like I said, I'm a small business owner. And it's tough, but I wouldn't think about putting anything on my property. I mean, you have to do what you have to do
to, you know, it's just not a commercial area. Old Forge Road where I live, it's basically all residential. And if you do for him, what's to keep you from doing for somebody else if they want to be a copycat or another landscape? I mean, you have to say yes to everyone.
>> No. Each application comes here on its own merit, okay? And a decision is made based on that. So just because we do something somewhere in the town does not set precedence anywhere else in the town. >> I'm glad you said that because I I wouldn't want to think otherwise. I mean listen, they have good cases both sides,
but hearing this gentleman, I never met him before. It sounds like what he's saying is is that's the town where I want to live. I don't want trucks next door to me. I don't want trucks up the road from me. I don't want them. I came here with my children 22 years ago and
the town's a beautiful town and it it should stay residential. I mean, you know, hopefully, you know, everybody's happy, but thank you. >> Thank you. Just one quick way. What was your address again, sir? >> 42 Macfallen Circle. >> 42 Mac Fall.
>> M A C F A R L A N E. >> Um, do you did you receive a notice from me? >> No, I did not receive a notice from you. Any idea how far you are from the property as the crow flies? >> Yeah, about two and a half miles. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Monroe is not a big town. >> Okay.
>> 44 square miles. >> Um, no. No, I'm finished. Please, >> if you could raise your right hand. >> Do you swear any testimony you provide is the truth, old truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Yes. If you could state your name, spell your last name, and give us your address, please, for the record. >> Yep. Aaron Corona. C O R O N A 225 Old
Forge Road, Monroe. It sucks getting one of these letters in the mail. It hurts. It's like opening up an old wound. Yet, we're here again today and have to deal with this again. Um, I'll just state at the beginning
that I do not agree that there have been substantial changes and I don't think that this should be heard again. Uh, we moved into Old Forge Road 10 years ago and we did our research. We checked plans and everything and when we when we did move in, we knew um we
didn't move into a street where commercial businesses operated legitimately, but in fact, we moved into a R60 neighborhood that by law and on paper was fully residential. And 10 years later, we don't want that to change. I'll just keep this brief for
now. Um you'll see by the number of families here tonight that are speaking out against this. We don't want our family-friendly residential neighborhood turned into a commercial runway, just like any of you here would want the same done to your houses.
>> Essentially, bottom line is we do not want a business in our backyard. >> Thank you. >> Do you have any questions? >> No, nothing for you, sir. Thank you. >> When was where does he live in? >> 225 Old Forge. Mr. >> How far away is that?
>> He said adjacent to the property. Did Jason to the property? And when Jason and when what when did he wound there? >> 10 years ago. >> Yes. >> Yes. Comfy. >> It's comfy. It is. It really is. >> You could raise your right hand, sir. Do you swear any testimony you provide is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth. >> I do. >> If you could state your name, spell your last name, and give us your address, please. >> Last name is Fox. FOX. Address is 227 Old Forge Road. I did get one of those letters a long time ago from the township when they were putting through Avenue K, which I was told originally was going to be a paper street and I
would never have a street there. So, it became quite a back and forth with the township. That changed when I moved in 28 29 years ago and that changed the way I have to live on my property now. Changing anything in a residential area
to making it commercial just doesn't make sense to me. Already Old Forge Road has gotten busier. Avenue K. I have I'm sure you can check a police record several accidents that happen on Avenue K. We actually went to the township got the variance so that you guys eminent
domained part of our property because of school buses coming out because of the potential for them getting t-boned coming over that hill which is a blind hill. School buses close to the length of a track just maybe the trailer maybe 40 some odd feet. You got landscaping
vehicles pulling out of a driveway. Uh 550. Well, the length of the Ford pickup truck has got to be close to 27 ft. Putting a trailer on top of that, that's a big pull straight out. Not that this matters. I don't want it to be uh commercial. I'd rather keep it
residential. But Gab Baldi would have been a home run then for them because they could have driven straight in from old forger Gabaldi and straight out the other way. turning around the full truck with a full trailer is tough on a limited spot and I don't really know how much room he has for that. Either way,
this is about whether that changed or not. We're zoned R 60. That's the way that area should stay. Otherwise, we will see multiple changes and other folks coming up looking to change that. I believe have any questions? >> No, sir. Excellent.
>> Thank you. >> Anyone else from the public, please come forward. Good evening. If you could raise your right hand. Do you swear any testimony you provide is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Yes, I do. >> If you could state your name, spell your last name, and give us your address, please.
>> Sheldon Kakovka. K U K A F K A Pen Cottonwood Court. >> Firstly, um you mentioned that setting a precedent does not exist. Sir, can you just tilt that mic down and just talk as loud as you could so everyone in the public can hear it, please? Thank you.
>> You commented on a decision that may or may not be made or not set a precedent for future cases. I don't understand how the board can make that comment because that is the purpose of this type of a meeting. It will set a precedent and I
expect the board to recognize that because you're >> we'll we'll respect your opinion but I'll disagree. So you can continue. That's why this board is established. That's why it's here. It's our discretion based on testimony from clients, applicants. The same way we're
observing people who are against it. That's what this board is here for. That's why it was designed. That's why it was established. We have the authority if we wish to based on what's being put forth to either say yay or nay with an application. And again, every
application is on its own merit. It does not set precedents. >> So, you're telling me that you can support an argument to approve of one member and not their neighbor for making similar changes? >> I'm not going to sit here and debate
with you. I I made a statement. I think it could be backed up legally from our attorney. If you wish to say anything with this application, you're more than welcome to do so. Other than that, this board reserves the right to move forward or not move forward on it. We do take everyone's opinion into consideration.
We are also Monroe residents. We respect everyone. We try and do our best. We're not professionals, but we've all been to school. We've all have training and we rely on our professionals as well to make common sense decisions when we get to that point. >> Let me comment that the gentleman who's
applying for this variance, first of all, from the street view has a beautiful home. I pass it almost every day and I think it's kept in a well it it's meticulous basically and I understand the gentleman wanting to use
his property and using Gab Baldi to keep his home in that manner. What I'm fearful of is that this is going to set a precedent. It won't be able to be defended by the board. That's just my opinion. And then the people who are arguing not to change
it, the Buffalolinos, while they may not like what I'm saying, is they then will likely use their landscaping business, their nursery business, and I will have commercial property behind my home. And I don't think this board, I think the
attorney would likely agree that in his practice, precedent matters. >> I would disagree. I agree with my chairman that does not matter. I agree with my chairman that each matter is >> the legal system based on that. >> Sir, if you would let me speak. Thank you. I appreciate it. There is no
precedent for a granting of a variance. Each application stands on its own merit as chairman Lato recited. So I understand your position that you disagree with that. But unfortunately that's not the case. Okay. Well, also as a business owner in the township of
Monroe, um I don't have the opportunity to have my business at my home. And if the gentleman arguing the case that he'd like to, then the board has to decide if they want to hear it. And what I've heard is um an application that seems to me to be similar. You have any questions
for me? >> No, sir. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, sir. Anyone else in the public wishing to be heard? Please come forward. Good evening. Do you swear the testimony you're going to provide is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? If you could state your name, spell your last name, and give us your address. You can sit down while you do
this. Uh, for the record, please. >> Heather Corona, 225 Old Forge Road, directly next door to the applicant's property. And at this time, I'll only be talking about the raised judicata like you had
asked. um a few things during the testimony that I'd like to bring up that were in the original application and in the original resolution which I have in front of me and we'll go through. One is that
um the initial application was for one truck and one trailer to be in the driveway. That is here directly in the notes. Now that's being increased to two. It's in the driveway. That's definitely a detriment. One is that it's the same leaving and
returning as in the past. In the previous application, there were also no deliveries and no waste. That is unchanged. That is nothing different. That is here in the board's notes and in their resolution.
We've already um ascertained that in the notes and in the resolution for why the board denied this um that the planner asserted that if access was limited to Old Forge, this business would be discontinued. I already heard with the attorney Toto said that that was
speculation. However, that was a statement made under oath. Additionally, in the original application, it was said that herbicides were not stored in a building. They were stored in the trailers.
So, that was said at the last meeting. So, that's I wonder if that's the same or if that's different cuz if they were they were never stored in a building. According to the transcripts, they were they were stored locked several gallons um in the trailers.
Uh, I've also been at this property for 10 years. Um, and this has always been zoned residential. If we go through the pages and the resolution, nothing has changed and that this is
still a property with a single family residential use and that the property cannot be developed with a conforming use within the R60 residential district. That is number two. Number three states the board recognizes that one of the goals of sound zoning which is supported
by case law is to eliminate non-conforming uses not to endorse them by granting a variance. Number four states that the subject property is marginally larger than the minimum size required and does not contain sufficient area to appropriately
support and buffer two principal uses. That is the same as that application >> objection because we're getting beyond rudikata. Actually, I'm go. This is Raj Judicata because I am looking at the previous paperwork and this is the resolution and I'm looking at the 11
things why the board denied it in the first place. I have plenty more to talk about if this were ever to go to be heard. In number six, the board concludes that the number of variances requested by the applicant would be a substantial detriment to the public good. That is the same as today. the b
the distances are the same in the previous application as they are today. The buildings that are there are not moving. In fact, building A was never permitted by Monroe Township. And I'm happy to provide proof of that through an oper request to everyone on the
board. So for all of the things that were said to be stored in building A, that is a non-permitted building. Additionally, number seven states, "The board notes that the applicant's use various includes 12 bulk variances.
How this would negatively impact the adjacent nearby properties, the neighborhood, and therefore the public good. We're still here today hearing those same things and the same distances, the same buildings, and the same double use." The board also found that the flooding experienced by us due
to the impervious coverage. I have pictures that I'm happy to provide. That has not changed. Number eight, the board determines the continuation of the single family residential use and landscaping business would frustrate the goals of the town's master plan. That is again what the applicant is going for
today. The board determined then that the inclusion of the commercial use would be detrimental to the quality of life for the residents. The board reiterated on number eight that one of the goals of sound zoning was to eliminate non-conforming uses, not to acknowledge them. Number nine is
that a landscaping business, and this is most important, is not a novel enterprise. Landscaping businesses are permitted within numerous other zones within the township. Mr. Garvina is a business owner. It is his responsibility as a
business owner to satisfy his expenses as a business owner. That should not come on to us and have that affect our property. The same thing is said here. that is not the landscaping is permitted within numerous other zones not in an
R60D zone. Number 10 says that the board concluded that the subject property cannot accommodate the issues associated with the two principal uses including a landscaping business use not permitted in the R60 district. The applicant's project clearly represents an
overdevelopment of the subject property. I'm reading verbatim. That was number 10. >> I should have got it. We're beyond that. just well beyond it. >> You're good. You're good. Getting into the merits, which I'm happy to debate. >> The merits I'm happy I'm happy to talk about another time. >> We're not going to have back and forth here. Let our council speak.
>> So So I would just indicate that you've recited numerous conclusions from the prior resolution for the prior application, which we're still trying to determine whether or not it's the same application or a different application. If it's >> Go ahead. >> Thanks. If the board were to determine
that it is the same application, the analysis would be the same, which is why resicata would apply. But until we decide whether or not they're the same application or not, there's no way to know whether or not those conclusions are going to be applicable to this application. So, I recognize the the the
uh paragraphs you're reading and the conclusions you're trying to tell the board it needs to make based upon them. But the board can't make those conclusions until it ultimately hears the application and it needs to make the outset determination of whether res judicata applies to bar the hearing of the application which would intimate
that those would be still then applicable. But if the board were to determine that resjudicata does not apply, it's going to hear the entire application and it's going to make a determination and the resolution it issues will indicate whether it has granted or denied the application based upon whatever its rationale are. So
that's that's where we're at. >> I understand what you're saying. I also want was pointing out that what was asked for then is still what's asked for now in terms of the fact that a building is still 7 ft from my property line. That's not being moved. in terms of a trailer being asked from one to now
being asked to two to be parked in the driveway. Um that and as well as the second building where many things are proposed to be placed in that is not permitted and you can let me know if you'd like to receive any of those documents. I have a copy for everyone on
the board. >> Thank you. I don't think that's necessary at this time. We believe you and we can actually find out if we need to at a later date. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Anyone else in the public, please come forward. >> Good evening, sir. If you could raise
your right hand, do you swear any testimony going to provide us the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> I do. If you could state your name, spell your last name, and give us your address, please, for the record. >> My name is Daniel Poland, P O L A N D. >> Sir,
>> uh 221 Old Forge Road. Neighbor right to the other side of the property and your question. >> Good. Whenever you're ready, sir. >> Okay. I didn't come to the first hearing. Um,
but I did it because of being a neighbor to two of the people involved, Buffalo and then uh Joe Graavos himself. I didn't come I didn't want any problems with neighbors, that type of thing. But I became familiar with um the
original hearing. Now, I spent my career as a state trooper and uh I testified in court over a hundred times on many different things and taking an oath means a lot. And after
from my view of reviewing um the last hearing and um being Joe's nextdoor neighbor since um he moved in there and since he took over the property he bought the property
like that I'm sure you must be aware of that he was unaware of the variance situation at the time where I don't see how he ever would have purchased the the property And um I just saw a lot of things that I felt were falsehoods and untruths on that matter. I know we're
not talking about that. As far as this new uh application, I looked at it. I looked at the differences between the two and there are differences, but most substantially is the fact that he doesn't run the business from there
anymore. He's a property owner with uh property which have some uh one building and two buildings that are more like lean to. They're open. There's no doors on them. And uh they don't he doesn't run it out of there anymore. And it looks like he just wants to have two
vehicles, the trailer or just the truck, possibly not even the trailer of his foreman to speak with him in the morning and they can go over to the place on in Helmeta and pick up the equipment and do their stuff. So there's nobody going in and out all day and there really never
was anybody going out in and out. I'm the next door neighbor. Um they were very quiet. I did hear two trucks or so start up, not diesel engines. uh just start up and drive off and you don't see or hear of them or anyone for the rest of the day. And that's the way it was
then. Now since and there were other vehicles around there. There's no doubt there. But now the there's no business nothing going on there at all. And in fact, you know, even if there's two trucks parked there, I hear a lot about
uh the way it looks, you know, to the neighborhood. Well, I don't believe anybody could really see what's going on. If you're quite driving down the street and just look to the right on his driveway, yes, you see his buildings and you'll see whatever buildings were there. Other than that, there's no
eyesore sight uh of the place. There's uh trees that have grown up and a block and views and uh you know, that's so it's my view that it is totally different than it was. and just to have a couple of trucks there and the guys
coming to take it um uh take their orders for the day so to speak and probably not even go back at the end of the day. Um I think there is a substantial difference in what's going on on the property. You could get in all of the little lengalities of the what's
been said by both lawyers about this was said then that was said then but that doesn't change this it doesn't change that. The point is the property has changed completely substantially and the only difference of the way it is now there's nothing there I expect to see
two trucks with or without a trailer and that's what I have to say. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. You're welcome. Anyone else from the public please come forward. Seeing there's none I will make a motion to close the public portion. Do I have a
motion from a board member? Do I have a second? >> Okay. All in favor of closing the public portion. >> I thank you. >> Okay. Council, do you have anything you want to add? >> Chairman, I'll be very brief. The board's heard a lot tonight, so I just
want to dispel this notion of this. There was one truck in the past and now we're proposing two. Paragraph 18 of the old application resolution states, Mr. Gravita stated that the applicant uses nine trucks in total in connection with the applicant's project and that
approximately two to three trucks were used offsite for a day. He confirmed that all of the applicants trucks return to the subject property by the end of each workday. So just want to throw that out there. The the resolution itself
describes nine. And just very briefly as to um Mr. Lansky's point on behalf of the Buffalolinos about the resolution and about what the board found important. This wasn't a 7 to zero vote. Uh Mr. Chairman and members of the board. This was four to three. This
application was a hair's breath away from getting approved. So to say what the board found important or not important is a little disingenuous. I mean the board this is this is an intelligent complicated uh issue and and intelligent board. So I don't know that I would profer that I know what the
board was thinking at the time it denied. Of course Mr. Vignolo drafted one heck of a resolution. But having said that, I do think there's room for uh a little movement and that movement should lead the board to think uh and understand that this application has
changed substantially. And uh what I've been saying for the last 2 hours was just succinctly said in in 2 minutes by Mr. Boland, I believe. Um and I could not say it any better than he just said it. And he's the adjacent neighbor. So nothing further. Uh
>> thank you. The only thing I'll add and and while I respect Mr. Toto and and um I I will note that the board's resolution is an indication of the board's decision on an application, individual board members comments uh on an application. How the
vote may or may not have gone is not indicative of the board's uh demeanor towards an application. How the board decided an application is set forth in the resolution memorializing the board's decision. So >> I don't disagree with that, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Vignella. We're moving 45 people.
>> You can. Yeah. So, yeah. And just for the record, Mr. Chairman, this this is the resjudicata determination on whether or not the board is going to hear the application, which is a use variance application. The resjudicata determination is a majority decision of
the board as opposed to a use variance application which requires five affirmative votes of the board in order for it to be approved. So, >> and Mr. We have five voting members and so it's three is necessary to move on. >> Right. So three affirmative votes would
be required to determine that res judicata does not apply to bar the board's hearing of this application. >> Do we have to provide an option if he they want to wait for full board or >> you not have to wait. Okay. It's a simple majority. So >> roll call.
>> Is there a motion or just a roll call? No, it'll be it'll be someone's but yes, I want to move to >> Okay, board members, we have a application before us that was previously denied. Uh we've heard testimony tonight from their
attorney. We also heard from the public with respect to the application, both sides. Um we need to decide here. We need a motion if we're going to rehear the application under rescue to carter where it will be starting from scratch all over again. They have to start from
the very beginning or are we going to decline hearing it again because we feel that there wasn't substantial changes to sway us to want to hear this application again. So, do we have a motion? >> I'd like to make a motion, but I'd like
to say something. >> Okay. this application and Mr. Toto, you can verify the fact this applicant actually worked for the previous owner who was a landscaper. >> Correct.
>> He was employed by them. He liked obviously and he as this individual was retiring so he bought his landscape business. >> Correct. >> Subsequently, he didn't really do anything other than landscaping.
So when we heard the first application, uh, you know, they had all these complaints. I've wrote them down. I remember the bathroom's a problem. He has too many trucks. That's a problem. Um, it's an eyes sore. I mean, anybody
can see that this has been changed considerably. I mean, I'm looking at it right here. Marino, I I think we need to we need to streamline this. We We all spoke. We have to get We have to either say yay or nay if we're moving forward or not.
>> I can't I can't I have my decision. Well, I think I think the issue is whether or not the application is different. So, if we can focus on the the differences in the application, not necessarily what the applicant may have done previously for a prior owner, cuz that's not really relevant to your
determination on whether or not this application is substantially different from the prior application. >> Well, what you just said is the determination, and my my view is is that I'm I'm for it. I want to go I want to go with this. So you're making a motion
to approve to rehear the applicant under res judic to find that res judicata does not apply to bar the hearing of the application would be the motion because you want to hear >> that's what I was trying to say but I'll cut it short. >> All right. >> I think I think that I think it's there's a million changes here. >> Okay.
>> So do we have a second on that motion? >> There's a second. Miss Ctori, Madam Secretary, roll call, please. >> Mr. Masters, I'm a no. Mr. Lup. >> Yes. >> Miss Carritori. Yes.
>> Mr. Tanzy. >> Chairman Lefada. >> I don't know. Is all well. >> So basically uh at this point, Mr. Toto, your client cannot move forward with hearing with re rehearing the application again.
um came out the same way as it did I think the first time and that's where this board decided. >> All right. Thank you for your time this evening. We appreciate your time. >> Welcome. Thank you. >> Okay. Board members, we have memorialization of application
BA-5257-25, Solar Landscape LLC. And we also have me memorialization of BA-5258-25, the same application. Do I have a motion to memorialize? >> Suggested. Is there a second? >> Mr.
Dandy. Yes. >> Mr. Masters. >> Abstain. >> Mr. Lup. >> Yes. >> Miss Carritori. Mr. Tanzy. >> Yes. >> Chairman Lefada. >> Yes.
>> Are there any discussion items? >> Thank you, Mr. Lo. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Yeah. It's the same company. >> Any discussion items? Any from anyone from the public to be heard? Please come forward. Seeing there's none, I'll close the
public portion. All in favor? >> I. >> Any correspondence? I make a motion to adjourn. >> So move. >> Second. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> Thank you. Happy New Year everyone. See you next month.