I call to order the regular meeting of the Township of Morris Planning Board for December 1st, 2025. The legal notice required in accordance with the Open Public Meetings Act has been satisfied and a statement certifying same will be executed. Could you all please rise and join me in the
pledge of allegiance? I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Mr. Flowers >> here. >> Miss >> here. >> Mr. Rabbit >> here. >> Miss Murphy >> here. >> Here >> Mr. B >> here. >> Mr. Warner >> here. >> Miss Laney >> here. Mr. Bush
>> here. >> Mr. Pat >> here. >> Mr. Park Pat is my replacement. Okay. And I'm Sonia Cynthia. Thank you, Sonia. Uh, okay. Welcome
everyone. Um, before we move to the, uh, regular agenda items, I have a bittersweet moment here. As Sonia just said, this is or mentioned or implied, this is her last meeting with us in the planning board here. And, uh, we want to
we certainly appreciate all the time she spent and want to recognize that. Um, so we have prepared a proclamation to recognize her long service. So if you'll join me, let me uh formally
recognize you sense of our appreciation. So in proclamation today whereas Mrs. Sony Santiago has served the residents of the township of Morris for 24 years, including 21 years as the secretary to the township's land use boards such as
the planning board, board of adjustment, open space committee, and for a period of time in the environmental commission. And whereas prior to her work in land use, Miss Santiago served one year in the building and engineering department and two years in the tax and sewer department before finding her long-term
professional home in land use. And whereas throughout her career in public service, she has earned an impressive range of certifications that reflect her commitment to excellence. And whereas Mrs. Santiago has announced her intention to retire at the end of December 2025 after 24 years of
dedicated municipal government service. And whereas during her tenure with the township of Morris, Mrs. Santiago has consistently fulfilled every duty and responsibility with care and commitment. Her experience, loyalty, and dedication have strengthened the township and
benefited its residents. And whereas Mrs. Santiago takes genuine pride in her work, which is evident in the quality she delivers. She is detail-oriented, professional, organized, and reliably independent. She meets new challenges headon, never turns away from
responsibility, and has long been known for safeguarding her records and standing firm when needed. Her work ethic is rare, valued, and will be deeply missed by the township. Now, therefore, be it resolved by the planning board of the township of Morris and the county of Morris state of New
Jersey as follows that the township of Morris planning board on behalf of the citizens of the township of Morris extends its sincere appreciation to Mrs. Santiago for the many years of service and offers best wishes to her, her husband Paul, and her daughters Erica
and Suma. be further resolved that this recognition be presented to Sonia Santiago has been a pleasure and I've really missed the township of all servicing all of the residents of the township. It has
been a great pleasure in serving you residents of the country for all these years that have been Thank you so much. Okay, moving on to our first official business, I guess. Uh, resolution. We
have a resolution from the PB 1325 from West, Mr. Chairman. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> The the uh and I won't even try, but uh this is a capital project review resolution. As the board is aware, uh
the Mars County Park Commission installation of a 12T by 10 foot shed to house the septic system components uh at the Louiswis Mars uh park. And uh as always, we hope it's an accurate
memorialization of the board's unanimous uh decision finding the proposal to be not inconsistent with the master plan and making not a single recommendation. So it was a perfect uh proposal and a perfect project I
guess. >> Any comments on the resolution as can I entertain a motion to >> move that we pass it? >> Approve it. >> Okay. Is there a second?
>> Second. Second. >> Jesse and your microphone's on, please. Could you call the role? Is >> yes? >> Yes. >> Mr. Rabbit? >> Yes. >> Miss Barbie? >> Yes.
>> Mr. >> Yes. >> Mr. >> Yes. Okay. Uh, moving on the public hearing on our the minor subdivision of the PBO825. Um,
you want to tee this up for us? >> Certainly, Mr. Chairman. I just want to note for the record the continuing recusal of board member Alleso from this matter. Uh, and uh, we did receive a notice uh, for this particular matter.
was uh uh updated from the prior one. Uh it appeared to me to be sufficient in content and uh to be timely certified mailed on November 20, published on November 21, both at least 10 days prior to this evening. Uh so unless there's an
objection uh by anyone, uh I believe the board continues to have jurisdiction to hear the application and decided albeit I happen to understand it's not going to be decided tonight. >> Okay. Um >> but I don't want to give any more away.
>> The the the um so we can proceed. Mr. Chair. >> Okay. And uh >> thank you Mr. Chairman. Uh Nancy Lenville from the firm of Prime Tal and Misselli, excuse me. Uh representing the
applicants Mark and Lynn Piccolo uh concerning 35 schoolhouse lanes. Um this evening um I have provided the board with a letter and multiple attachments dated um December 1st. I'd like to mark
that as I believe exhibit A3. >> Yeah, A2 is the last. That's correct. >> The letter is uh when you're ready, Mr. You ready? Yeah. Okay. Um the letter uh lays out the applicant's position with
respect to the width of schoolhouse lane right away. Um at the last meeting as you will recall uh it it was asserted by several of the uh people in the audience and the objectors that the width of the
right of way is a 66 foot wide um road whereas the tax map and multiple other indishia of a 50-ft ride ofway exist in the township and the letter um explains our position with respect to
that. the um master plan plate six circulation a copy of which is attached to the letter and I'd like to mark that as A4 just so I'm clear Mr. Chair if I may Mr. Chairman the letter is that a December 1 2025
letter addressed uh to the chair and the engineer of the board and it is five pages. >> Yes, that is correct. Okay. And what when I was hand handed it was something different, but >> it's been distributed to the board.
>> And I emailed it to you. >> Oh, I do have a copy. That's why I kn it was a five pager, right? But the date I'm good, but I'm not that good. Uh but um but uh Okay. So So the letter itself, the five pages is A3 and I'm sorry, A4
is >> would be uh the master plan six. circulation. >> It's one page A4, >> correct? >> Okay. >> Where is
and that that'll do it for now. um >> last page >> the letter which you can um review at your convenience but the but the the overall summary is that we have find
found multiple indicia of uh 50oot right ofway pertaining to schoolhouse lane and that consists of uh the official map excuse me the master plan plate six indicates that schoolhouse lane is a
collector road. The tax map which we've previously discussed indicates that it is a 50- foot wide rideway. The
land use ordinance describes a minor collector road as a 50-ft rideway with a 30 foot wide pavement. Um we have also um gone in great detail in in item two of the letter of December
1 to describe multiple deed references along schoolhouse lane. I reviewed the uh 20 deeds of conveyance to 20 lots on either side of schoolhouse lane. And um
in the other addendum to the letter which I would like to mark as A5 uh and that is entitled Schoolhouse Lane right ofway deed references.
We have um located Mr. Mr. Warner let me know when you're ready. Just for the record that's six pages correct. >> That is correct. The Schoolhouse Lane right-of-way deed references is a summary of all of the
lots on either side of Schoolhouse Lane. They're located in two blocks. Um block 3501 is the uh side of the street where the subject premises is located. And directly across the street, the southerntherly side of schoolhouse lane
is in block 361. And I have this evening um our engineer and our uh surveying expert who will um walk through the this u summary with the help of a
um an exhibit which we're going to mark as A6 and that is entitled >> tax map exhibit >> tax map exhibit on land and ostricorn
sheet uh consisting of two sheets. And I think it would be most helpful if we could bring up the a A6 the tax map exhibit for the benefit of the public who are online and I believe my engineer has
brought um a large version herself. Yes, please. And then we'll um put M Oorn on the record. Excuse me. >> Yes. It was provided. It's being
at this meeting now. >> Yep. That's what I just asked whether it was provided today. Yes. >> I'm sorry. I have a phone. >> Do you do you have a copy of it? An extra copy of any
>> Sonia. Do you have >> copy of the package the extra copy that >> it's my understanding Mr. Chairman, just for the record, and applicants council, can you correct me if I'm wrong? >> My understanding these were just handed out
>> to the board members on the deis by applicants council andor the applicants. >> What she's showing, I don't mean to be disrespectful, Mr. Chairman, what she's showing on the screen that I believe was I don't I
don't have a copy of that. >> This was Let me correct. >> If I may, Mr. Chairman, may maybe council can finish. Objectives council can finish, but that's why I asked if you had an extra copy to give him if he doesn't have one.
But >> is the that's just the tax map. That is not >> the entire package. >> The tax map was submitted with the letter to show the 50 foot rightway indication on schoolhouse land. in the letter. The exhibit has not been
presented to anyone else until this moment. The exhibit is an exhibit. >> Okay, that's fine. M Sharon, did do you I don't have a copy either. I have a something that looks like if it's not
doesn't have the uh estimation of it. >> Well, neither do what we have. >> Neither does the board. No, the board is just the without >> somebody's gonna have to at some point get exhibit. >> The exhibit was not >> completed until a till late today until
after the letter was written. I did not mean ever to include the exhibit in the letter. It is an independent exhibit. >> That's fine. But other than what's on the screen, do you have a copy of it? >> I have a partial copy, but not the
entire copy. I don't have a >> well then we'll all operate from what's on the screen I guess including the board members and at some point an actual copy will be provided or maybe uh if it was provided digitally to Santiago
perhaps we can make copies at some point here after this evening >> we do have copies in in our packages similar but it's not exactly We just got it today. We just got it. >> We just got it.
>> That's okay. >> I don't think that's >> See the lines through the middle there. >> Is it the If I may, Mr. Chairman, is it >> what you have on the screen? Is that the same thing as uh what was provided with with the letter but for the fact that it has the preparers information on the
right from the uh surveyor engineer? >> Oh, it also calls out >> we call out the location. >> All right. So, we don't have a >> other than on the screen that's fine. >> However you wish to present the case is
fine. We we can operate at this point. I don't think we have to stop the proceedings to make photo copies. I think we could follow along. >> Mr. Simon, there's no disadvantage more than anyone else. >> For the record, I don't Well, for the
record, no one should be disadvantaged. >> I I never anticipated that every exhibit entered in a planning board needed needed to be copied 15 times. It's an exhibit, but I'm more than willing to allow this to be printed and everyone
can follow it. >> I think everybody can follow it on to Mr. Simon. So, he is not disadvantaged. >> Whatever applicants council prefers, however you want to present the case, you present the case. >> Uh, for the record, uh, Miss Aster,
would you state your name, address qualifications? Maybe you can seriously. And while we're doing microphone um things, could we also well we'll start with this
and we will also go over That is all I have. It's a deep book and page reference deep book and page reference in my handwriting because I don't have a copy
of the printed. Okay. Kirsten Ostricorn 42 Central A Lake or Midland Park, New Jersey on land in Austria. >> Yes. >> Yes.
>> Yes, please do. Uh, Miss Osterard, would you um tell us uh what the exhibit uh that we have uh marked as A6? >> Sure.
>> It is a tax map tax map exhibit. It is a two sheet set that we had put together. Originally it was of one of one but then we added in the second sheet which I will refer to. Um the notes that we call out on it as noted as can be seen on the
screen are by deed book and page with lot numbers and references to tracks and deed books and pages that um is part of the documents that you submitted that all that we had referred to for 25 foot
dedications 50 foot right of ways that was just supporting the application. So, you prepared this this exhibit and um would you tell the the board what the larger numbers with the uh number sign in front of them represent?
>> Those are the addresses on schoolhouse lane. So, our subject property is number 35, which is block 3501, lot six. Um, all the other number signs are the addresses that are along schoolhouse
that are associated with block and lots that referred back to the deed books. >> And the tax Thank you. >> And the tax lot numbers are also indicated. >> They are indicated in the circles on the
page. The block is in a square 30 block 3501 and across is 30 361. And then the lot numbers are in the circles and on a third on the referring to block 361 which is the opposite side of
schoolhouse lane from the subject property. Correct? >> Yes. >> And if we start at do you have your notes? >> Yes. So, I believe that lot one is the is the um schoolhouse itself owned by the
Morris School District. >> Yes. >> And that's lot one, block 3601. >> Yes. >> Um and at lot three. Would you point out lot three? 3601. And that is number 12
lane. Yes. put on the screen at this lot >> and the meets and bounds description with that um would you describe the information we obtained regarding the meets and bounds description >> the needs and so lot three is a 2.75 acre lot uh with 458.52
frontage the meets and bounds from July 2025 beginning at a cap rebar uh set with the right of way of schoolhouse lane noted as 50 foot right of way said point being from the division lots of lots three and two, flock 3601, the official tax map of
Morris County and running vents. >> So that description references a 50ft ride ofway. >> Yes. >> And moving to lot five. Uh what is the address on lot five? >> Lot five. >> Five is that's 502. >> Five is number 40 schoolhouse lane.
>> And did what did we uh locate there? >> 40 schoolhouse lane was a 3.24 24 acre lot with a 628.96 uh foot frontage. It was conveyed in August of 2020 described uh with a proposed southwesterly sideline of
schoolhouse lane marked by a concrete monument said on a survey and proposed subdivision plan block 5 tax lot 5 block 361 tax sheet 36 prepared in November 20 uh 2005.
Um, and then it gives some bearings and distances, but it concludes with a schoolhouse lane said point being 25 ft southwesterly uh uh with respect to a dedication. >> 25 ft southwesterly of the middle of the road. >> Yes, I'm sorry. Of the middle of the
road and that refers to an older deed booking page. >> And then that's course six and course 7 >> uh repeats the 25 ft from the middle of the road. Is that correct? Okay. Moving on to lot 501. >> Yes. 5.01 is lot number is number 44
schoolhouse lane is a 865 acre lot with a lot frontage of 212.06 06 44 schoolhouse lane. Legal description of 2013 deed beginning at a point in the center line of schoolhouse lane 50t wide. Both courses one and two
referencing iron pipe set course three running vents and it continues on from a 50ft right ofway from the center line. And with respect to lot 502. 502 is a 5.39 acre lot with a frontage
of 248.22 square ft uh um sorry feet of frontage 36. It describes it being started at an iron pipe or concrete monument and then course 8 runs parallel to and 25 ft southwesterly of the middle of the road
as described in the same deed book previously mentioned of book 26 266 page 280. And now uh lot six. Who owns lot six? Where is it and what's the address?
Where's lot? Oh, that six is on my page two of two. Sorry. >> So, we're at page two of two. >> Page two of two of the tax map exhibit on schoolhouse lane north is up on the
page. There is a deed of dedication for right of way to the township of Morris, 52 schoolhouse lane, block 361, lot six. >> And the date of that dedication This deed dedicated a 20 foot five 25-
ft ride ofway along the southerntherly side of schoolhouse lane in December 1989. The description includes the meets and bounds of the dedicated right of way which specifically references a 25 foot halfwidth for five courses. >> Excuse me, we seem to have lost
>> Oh, I'm sorry for Sonia. This is the second page. Thank you. Uh and then it continues on for the dedication of deed recites. It's in accordance with the subdivision from 1989 revised August 12th, 1989
by James Hollyy. >> And then um the next entry for lot six, lot six again describes it's an uh that was the deed of dedication for lot six. Then lot six, which is a 3acre lot with 290 ft of
frontage, also refers to its courses running parallel with a distance of 25 ft measured at right angles from the center line as described in the above referenced, which is the deed of dedication for the township of Morris at 25 foot. And then finally, lot seven.
57 is next door to it. And that is the address is address >> 54 >> 54 schoolhouse lane 6.8 acre lot with two frontages on schoolhouse.
Uh it's partially with mendum but the current describes lot seven as beginning at a point on the southwesterly side of schoolhouse lane 50 foot wide at a point beginning 25 ft 73 on a bearing it gives a bearing from the center line of schoolhouse lane and that of course
refers to the deed of dedication we previously discussed. >> Yes. >> So that is that dedication is indeed book 3246 at page five. >> Yes. >> In 1989. >> Yes. >> All right. Then moving to block 3501, which is the opposite side of the
street. Sun, I'm gonna go back to the one. Sheet one. Tax map exhibit sheet one. And I refer you to lot two. >> Lot two is number 53. >> Number 53. Schoolhouse Road deed book
5441 page 6 dedicated in 2001 uh refers to a deed description beginning at a point in the middle of schoolhouse lane having a 50ft right ofway. All right. At this point, um I would
like to bring up the revised um subdivision plan sheet two of three. These were the submitted plans. Correct. >> This last revis >> that is correct.
>> I haven't submitted as of uh November 21, which I believe is >> I'm sorry, November 20th. >> 20th >> 20, which is at least 10 days prior to this evening. So we do not have the march desert exhibit but can just referenc it.
>> Thank you. Uh did you this um is uh our amended our revised site plan excuse me minor subdivision application as just referenced by Mr. Warner. And did you prepare this plan?
>> Yes. >> And does what does the plan reflect with respect to the width of the schoolhouse lane right away? We revised the plan. One, just side note, we put on the shed that it
was noted that it was still there. So, we went back out there to make sure it was still there. So, it will be removed as it was explained by the applicant at the last time, but it is still existing right now for the shed. But with respect to the right of way, we noted all the
evidence found. So, in the south west, no, the west corner of the lot, there was an iron pipe found by uh Dee with no date. In the southwest corner, which is at the intersection of Schoolhouse Lane, we had an iron pipe
found with no name and no date, no date. And in the east corner or southeast corner at the lower right hand corner of the property, we found two uh forms of evidence. Uh it was noted we found an iron pipe with no name and no
date. And then we found which um lines up with a 50ft right ofway along with the evidence we found in the lower leftand corner of the property. And just behind that iron pipe, there was a rebar cap found named with Richard Smith with
no date. It lines up with a 66 ft right of way. Uh but based on all the we're we're basically showing all the evidence found. So we show what is a 66 ft right of way per the road map from the 1700s
and we are also showing the 50ft right ofway per all the evidence and town tax maps and deeds of record that we just previously described. >> Would you clarify the the pin or cap marked as Richard Smith
signifies which of the two >> that way? It was marked uh behind the other iron pipe found and it lines up approximately, it wasn't exact, but it lines up with where a 66 ft right
ofway would be. It was approximately 8 ft behind the other pipe that we found. And the other pipe that you found signifies the >> it lines up with a 50 foot right away which lines up with the pipe >> in the southern corner which is the
bottom left of the page as well as the northwest corner the top left of the page that all lines up with that evidence. We there was other evidence also found on the block which isn't shown on a survey but so as a surveyor
when you find um inconsistent information um what is your um task in terms of determining the right of way um and how do you reach that
opinion? >> We're supposed to present all the evidence found which you've done. >> Which we've done. >> Um, we label this as a 50-ft lane. We can clarify it more of a tax map versus
road map, but you list all of the evidence found and are documenting all information that you can find and and provide and make your best opinion possible. In cases like this where there's a question about a road width
and it ends up going with the research that we had found to the municipal records, it ends up going back. We can still document all the evidence that was found. So, in going through the uh various uh lots uh along Schoolhouse
Lane, as we did just now with the tax map exhibit, you've identified numerous um other surveyors with opinions with respect to a 50-ft rideway. Is that correct? >> Yes. >> And um the those surveyors formed their
own opinion in looking at the information that they had. And is that correct? You have to answer. >> Yeah. Sorry, I nodded. Yes. >> Um that's correct. >> And um of the two two of the lots you indicated had dedications. Is that correct?
>> Yes. >> And those two dedications are attached to the December one letter. And I'd like to mark them as A7. Are we okay? And you mentioned, you've testified
previously that the 1989 dedication was the result of a um minor subdivision. Is that correct? Yes. >> And that would be deed and page.
>> The book and page of that deed 361. Nope, that's wrong. Sorry, that was the block. Book 3246, page 6. And the second dedication is with respect to lot that you testified to. I believe to
lot. >> Excuse me. Can I see this? >> Lot number 502, block 3601. And who is the grantee of that deed? >> Richard Daris. >> No, the grantee >> the township of Morris. Sorry.
>> And and who and that create that deed has two tracks described in it. >> Yes. one, a conveyance deed into the township of Morris. >> Track one and track two is a roadway dedication. >> And so the township of Morris accepted and granted
>> yes >> a 25 foot halfwidth roadway dedication towards a 50-ft rideway. >> Yes. >> Do you agree? >> Okay. >> Okay. Thank you. Um so as um did this did this material
influence your opinion as to the correct right of way with it in it was part of our decision making. Yes. There was lots of other evidence founder markers monuments iron
pipes that we found. Then along with doing the deed research on the entire block and finding dedications all came uh to our wannabe conclusion of a 50-ft right ofway. While there was the older
research from the 1700s for the 66 ft, it seems to have been that the township has more accepted the 50-foot as the right of way for schoolhouse lane. >> Thank you. Uh right.
Um, and let's move to sheet three of three of the sheet three of three of the revised minor subdivision plan. Uh, can you advise the board as to any uh as to the revisions you made thereon?
Starting with, let's say, the bulk schedule, did we add a category? Uh we added the category for the minimum lot area per family. That was noted um at the previous meeting. We had our variances
listed for lot area and lot width. We added the lot area per family as an additional variance that was put in the notice. Uh required was one family per 3 acres. We have for proposed lot 6.01,
one family per 2.003 003 acres and for lot 6.02, one family per 2.156 acres. >> And what does revised uh sheet three of three reflect with regard to the uh width of schoolhouse lane right ofway?
>> We continue to still note the dedication as uh 50 foot. We didn't 20 but 20 >> a 20 a 25 ft road dedication >> and that is because your opinion is that >> that it's a 50ft right ofway
>> and you base your opinion on surveying u standards and >> standards and practices but again it still goes to that it's the we're presenting out the evidence that we found documenting everything but at the end of the day um
knowing that there Is that not official? It's up to the town to make that decision. And so the uh bulk uh zoning table that you provide on this sheet continues to um evaluate the lot size
and the other variances based upon a 50 foot rightway, a 25 ft half width. Is that correct? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Thank you. Um does the board have any questions? or port professionals.
>> Yeah. >> The couple minutes ago we spoke to two pins along the edge of the property. One being >> I can't hear you. >> Two pins. two pins in the plan right corner of the
property. >> Yes. >> About 8 feet apart. >> Yes. >> Those two pins to which deeds are each of those pins referenced in calls. >> Uh and if you could remind us of the
exhibit you're referring to for the record when you refer to it. So the >> it's A6. No, I know. I have to find the right. >> Are either of them called in the subject property? >> That's what I want.
>> Okay. >> What was your question? Are either three of them called what? >> In the subject property deed. So there they're evidence in the field of a common lot line between the subject property and
the neighboring property I believe is is it lot eight? >> Yes, lot eight. I just looking for clarity on which pin is referenced in which deeds or in both. >> They weren't referenced in the deed.
They were found during our surveying fieldwork, but they're not referenced. >> They're not referenced. >> They're not called. It's not saying to a point marked by a pin. >> Okay. >> It's just they're prior evidence of another surveyor's efforts.
>> Yes. Okay. Or at some point when right when we were doing the surveying fieldwork with our metal detector, we found it and we found the one 8 ft behind too, but neither was called for specifically in a deed
>> or or set by a surveyor with >> not that ne the only one that had a name was the one that was 8 feet behind by Richard Smith, but it was not in a deed that we found that called for that. So, is is Richard Smith common to the meets
and bounds of either the subject property lot six or the neighboring lot 8? >> It is a common lot line. Uh the corner would be dependent on if it's a 50ft or a 66 ft rightway, but
neither deed called to that specific point set by a specific surveyor. So it wasn't it wasn't called in either meets and bounds. >> Not that we found >> to the to the pin you found >> correct. >> But are either of the pins or both
representative of the point being called in the meets and bounds. >> So in the subject property lot six. >> Yes. When you run your boundary and get to that point, are either of those two evidence of
what's called in the subject properties current deed >> in the lot six deed that calls for a subdivision to it calls to the subdivision of a center line of schoolhouse, but the schoolhouse
is not referenced. or dimensioned. >> Okay. >> By the lot six deed, >> right? That deed is still calling the center line. >> It just says center line and it doesn't specify. >> Sorry. >> If I may, you're referencing uh the deep
for lot eight. >> I'm asking for both. I'm just trying to understand if either of the evidence is already in a meets and bounds description as found or if it was set by the surveyor that prepared either of the meets and bounds. I think the answer is
none to all. >> None to the lot six info information that we have recites a subdivision in con affected by conveyance that was approved by the Morris Township Planning Board in 1960.
The 1960 meets and bounds begins and ends at the center line of schoolhouse but the width of schoolhouse is not defined. >> Understood. So how and when those points were put in that specifically line up with a 50 foot
and then the one behind it ends up lining up with a 66 foot. I did not find a deed to specifically called to those points. >> Right. So they're just field evidence by other surveyors that were not set based on meets and bounds by that surveyor in
either case. >> To my knowledge, yes. >> Okay. Um, for the record, both copies of both these with the full description are in the packet that I provided to you this evening. >> Yes. >> So, it's a lot of engineering and
serving. Steve, I apologize. What I was trying to identify is the certainty to which either pin was set for what purpose and if they're then referenced in recordation. The answer being no on all. So, all right. Obvious. So
surveyors will at times set monumentation for meets and bounds or they may set evidence in the field for for future call back and reference pinpoints. And so somebody was doing their due diligence on those properties and establishing that point of
reference, but it wasn't specifically called to as a marker for the corner pin to establish the edge of the rightway on this subject property or on the neighboring property coincidental line. So, if I'm reading this or understanding
correctly, um, on block 3501, right, which is the block we're considered, there's except for lot two and a lot 11, there's no reference to with the rightway. Everything is to the
center line of the road >> in the in the deeds. Yeah. >> And lot two, I think, says 50, 25, half whatever 50 foot. And lot 11 is the only reference to a 66 foot with the road,
which usually dates back to the 1700s or something. >> Yes. >> Right. Whereas on the lot uh block 35 or 36, the other side of the street, those are there are a number of references to road widths. >> Yes.
>> At rightways, which is which are I don't I didn't look. You read off though. Are they all Are they all 50 ft 25 ft that width or are there some references? >> There are some There are some that don't have a right of way. I referenced the ones lot um
lot one and two didn't have a right-of-way reference. I referenced lot three. Lot four, it talks to a monument but doesn't have a right-of-way reference. Lot five spoke
to the 25 ft 5.0 01 spoke to it 5.02 and six and I believe seven and seven. So there was less on the other
>> side. I think I answered. Oh yes. Yeah. No, hold on. Thank you. Yeah. Any other questions from the board or board professionals? >> Uh Mr. Mr. Oh, I'm sorry. >> Still going back then. So on tax map sheet 35,
right? uh the the northerly side of the road, the subject property side of the road, the lot one at the top of the page and then lot 11 at the bottom of the page are the two that call to sorry only lot one is calls to a 66T
right away and then lot two next to it calls a 50 foot and all others are not described by deep Yes. >> Okay. >> Then a lot 11 >> lot 11 does
>> lot one and lot 11 say 66 lot two >> understood >> refers to 50 foot and everything else in between doesn't >> calls the center lines >> calls the center lines. >> Okay. And the center lines are not described as a list, right? >> No, it just says it says no right of way
dedication is referenced. >> You have any questions? >> I I guess I have a question. I'll try. I'm not quite sure who my question is for. Um, so why are we talking about all this? I was going to say that. >> I think that's >> because
if the rightway is 66 feet in front of the subject property, then when subdivided, the two lots that are created will be smaller than what you're declaring them to be. And that will make in some people's minds perhaps the
severity of the variances greater. Uh is is that accurate? I mean I don't know who feels like answering that question but I think that's why this is a a a matter for discussion here. >> Uh you you are correct. It will make it
will intensify >> speak into the mic please. It it will intensify the variances because the lot area overall the lot area of the two proposed U lots will be smaller
and the variances for uh the interior lot width may also be exacerbated. uh we bring this to the board's attention at this point in time because we really cannot proceed
accurately until we know which of the rightways apply. um we have maintained in our most recent set of revised plans dated um November 20 um that we in our opinion our
surveyor in our engineer in our opin in their opinion believe that the 50ft right ofway applies most particularly because the township itself has in 1989 asked for a 25- ft right-of-way
dedication as the result of a minor subdivision vision and because the township itself owns a property on in block 361 that it's it itself has dedicated 25 ft to
itself. The township owns it and has dedicated 25 ft half width to the township. Um those are very strong indisha of the fact that the tax map which states that the uh right ofway is
50 feet is the accepted designation of of the street. However, because there are multiple deeds that that either don't well that a couple of deeds that that revert back to the 1783
1784 uh road return books at 66 ft. Um we and because that fact has been brought forward to the board by the objectors, we're really at an impass as to um how
we can proceed with our application um to for a minor subdivision and the variances that are required. If the if the evidence for if if you're using evidence for one lot to argue for
another lot, aren't you in effect saying that the rightway must be the same width throughout the length of the block? >> And is is that the case? And again, I'm not sure who should be answering this question, but is it I'll defer to the >> Is it ever the case that the that the
right of way varies from one lot to the next as we go as you go from lot to lot along a block by recordation? Yes. >> By recordation? Yes. Because there is always the opportunity for
legacy of prior dedications or establishment by filed maps to not be corrected across the entirety of the right of way. So all the common lots along the line at some point. For example, the best way to understand that
is that some of the deeds we're talking about tonight on this section of road and this these two blocks 361 and 3501 still include a call to the center line of the road and do have never
established by their deed their title chain the dedication of the frontage to the right of way. That doesn't mean that the property owner owns the rights over the middle
their side of the roadway. It just means that the deeds and the meets and bound calls have not been established in recordation. And so the discussion tonight is regarding cleaning up one of those instances, a property that calls to the
center line of the road and where the establishment of the center of the frontage is to be established. And if for this property it were determined that the right ofway is 66
ft, that this that the center line is 33 ft from the from where the property owner's um property line is, then wouldn't that also apply to every other property in
the two blocks that has the same uh set of facts, which would be several other properties at least. If I may, Mr. Chair, >> yes. >> Would it would it be more advisable
in my opinion, it may be more advisable for the applicant through the applicant's witnesses to take their position with respect to your questions. And ultimately, I suspect we'll hear from the objector who may or may not have witnesses,
>> okay? >> Who may take a position which may be the same, may be different in all due respect to our engineer who no doubt will have an opinion as well. I was about to go. You let you off. >> We know each other well enough.
>> But um I think the legal phrase is we shouldn't get too far ahead of our skis. I think that's the phrase. >> Mr. Chairman, I have first a comment and secondly I have a question. To whom it is addressed, I don't know either to
follow your lead. Um, this is a historic area obviously and the zoning that is in place right now was overlaid on existing development and an existing roadway system that dates back to the 1700s.
That is very clear. That's the nature of this area. It's a historic area and land use is often a messy business when you have overlaid zoning on existing development. And I'm struck by when I
look at the lots, the number of lots that are well below a 3 acre minimum, likely because they were there to begin with and they were smaller when the zoning overlay happened. whatever date that happened in
the township. The the the question I have is similar to your question which is there is an existing road and the existing road is clearly not a main arterial road having
driven on that myself. So, I'm I'm just curious to know why why we are reaching back into the 1700s before the zoning existed to try to
overlay that on an existing situation, which is clearly not the same as it was in the in the 1700s. It's now a very different residential area than it looked like back then. So that's just
that's my my my qu let me form a question here which which it follows you like should it all be one or another and the fact that that only two lots are referencing 66 everything else is either 50 or just references the city the
center line would indicate that those two to me were in place back in the back in the day. Everything else is perhaps more current, but also potentially affected by the zoning that overlaid it whenever the township did that. So, I I
think we're I I'm looking for some guidance from our planner, I think, on that to the extent. Do you feel you can offer any? >> Um, the only thing I can think of that just off the top of my head is to look at
this. It looks like the lot was created in 1989, right? Is to to see if we have a copy of the subdivision deed or resolution just to see what it was because that is more recent and that
may have established what was anticipated at that point for the roadway. But I I I understand your question and I'm not I I'm not sure I have a good answer. I mean, we have we have lots on both sides of the road that are significantly
smaller than three acres, >> right? >> So, so it it's not as though this was a a lot an area of land that that fit the zoning that was overlaid on it. There there truly are exceptions on both sides of the road.
>> Right. And and the the road in question today is not a major arterial road. Mhm. >> in use. So, I'm I'm kind of just wondering why we're why we're chasing our tail
on this. >> Well, it it is something that we have to decide. >> Well, I understand, but I'm just I'm just >> right >> a little befuddled about the whole thing. >> Again, if I may, Mr. Maybe it's uh it's
helpful for all parties to understand the board's questions, concerns. That's an integral part of the process as well as members of the public's questions, concerns. it uh
it may ultimately be best for each side to present their positions uh and uh for the board to make determination as to that issue whether it's a predicate issue or is going to be decided in conjunction with the ultimate
issue of whether the relief request is granted or not. um to hear from the respective not only council but uh expert witnesses uh and to ultimately then perhaps get more guidance from the
board professionals hopefully uh and then make that determination. So in short, we just have to go through the process >> and and maybe we should >> Yes. >> go through the process. >> Take your counsel, but let's get on with
it. >> In line in line with that, is there anything else? I mean, I think you've you you've stated your case to summarize. Is there anything else you'd like to say in support of your contention that it's the 50 foot right away before we open this up to questions to the public and to the objectors? I
I'd just like to clarify if I may um with the with the engineer um the point that whether the various deeds are inconsistent in terms of or or void of
information with respect to the width of the roadway. It is the township's uh ability and and right to to establish a a designated rightway. Is that correct? and and that would apply to the entire
street, not lot by lot. >> You're saying the intended width based on the type of roadway. I'm saying that in the situation that we have here with so many inconsistent deed descriptions
that one property is not going to have a 66- ft right of way and another property a 50 but rather the road has to be consistent from beginning to end at a particular width
pavement and right ofway such that the tax map indicates ates. It's a 50ft rideway. >> It my engineering expert opinion because I'm not a surveyor,
right? But surveyors present the multitude of facts they find in evidence and recordation maps and deeds and is inherently imperfect in that
Municipality receives a right ofway by dedication from the land owners to the municipality. If you own lot 3601 and somebody owns else owns lot block 3501 on the two
sides of this street and somebody subdivides the southern side of the road. They can only grant the dedication to the center line to establish the width in coordination with the municipality during an approval. And the municipality
can only accept that roadway after it's improved to municipal standards. When there's a road that already exists to standards, it's easier to accept the road. But if this was a blank slate and you created a a paper street,
that paper street is not our the municipality's land until it is improved and dedicated until it is improved and accepted by the municipality. So over 200 something years, these
imperfections exist. And my opinion would be that you can have variable width right ofway of 50 and 66 ft and it does exist throughout the state of New Jersey and many municipalities.
The surveyor, the township surveyor of the tax maps continues to refresh the tax maps with mostly annual updates through the whole set and each sheet
every couple years and continues to present this as a 50-foot writeway based on their compilation of all these deeds over time and the legacy of what they've inherited from other professionals. It doesn't mean that all the deeds
match up to 50 foot and it doesn't mean that those deeds wouldn't need to be addressed if they're centerline deeds in dedications when they come in front of you. So this is part of what I said before that cleanup and there is a cleanup here
today to happen or in this hearing from the center line to some width. that with is part of the objection and part of what we're here to hear from both sides in their testimony. >> In terms of however the actual pavement
of the street that is within the purview of the town to um dictate by way of an official map >> on in the MLUL section 32. Are you saying that that the road would
be wider in some places and narrower in others? >> No, they're mutually exclusive. The width of the right of way and the width of the pavement are are not dependent on each other. >> So the width of the right ofway refers
to the the fe title discrepancies. >> Yeah. But the width of the pavement that the that the township requires is designated by the township. Isn't that correct?
>> Based on the the type of roadway, correct? >> And so the type of roadway here is also discussed in the letter at page three. Um there are um primary arterial roads that are 66 feet
wide, major collectors that go from 56 to 60 and minor collectors with a design standard of 50 ft with a pavement of 30 ft. So I think in
the land use ordinance we have a discussion of both the fee right ofway but also the pavement width. So what I'm trying to get at is we have a a a historic anomalies all
over the street for the technical right of way based on title. But by the same token, we have a design standard for a pavement width and that designates, as you say, the type of
street. We're trying to get at what is the designation of the street. And if I may, um, plate six indicates that it's a a collector, which leads us to choose between major
and minor. >> I'll offer you this. On page two of your letter, exhibit A3 referenced at the bottom section A master plan land use ordinance. >> Yes.
>> The definitions in chapter 57-4. >> Right. >> Our intention of a definition of a of a street, a type of street, right? The second section you see at the top of page three
for 5782B1 and two, >> those are design standards. Those design standards where you're referencing the right of way combined with the pavement width are for the creation of roadways or the
added improvement of an existing roadway for the development that's going adjacent to them. So there the reference 82B1 and two for the design standard should not necessarily
be applied to existing roadways to establish right ofway widths without improvements to that road that are changing the type of road or the use of that road. I understand. Then um what would and I
don't want to put you on the spot if you need more time to review all of this information, but um the third option under section 574 definitions is a street minor collector. a street
which conducts and distributes traffic between lower order residential local streets and an arterial street as opposed to a major collector which conducts and distributes traffic between arterial streets
and then the arterial street itself which is primarily for fast or heavy traffic designated on the sector plan maps of the master plan. Given the fact that plate six indicates this to be a collector street and given the fact that
it's a fork off of Washington Valley Road which connects to an arterial i.e. Mendum Road. My understanding would be that it this is a minor collector street and I'm wondering if you would agree
And again, if you want to take it under advisement, I understand that. >> I don't >> our plate six doesn't define major versus minor. >> It just says >> and I don't think it's the necessarily the appropriate jurisdiction
in this hearing to define it on behalf of the township. my my >> it is correct that we do not have an official map that that >> we have an official map is identified as a collector. If that collector is either a minor or a major
collector and you were to you were proposing the roadway and you were going to construct it, you would construct it to the design standards in the subsequent section below it 82B 1 and 2 for the rightway
width. You would dedicate 56 to 60 in a 36 to 40 foot pavement on a major or on a 50ft rideway with a pavement width of 30 ft on a minor. It perhaps it's more appropriate that we
allow both sides to play out and present their positions prior to getting ahead of our skis. >> Yeah, I um >> Yeah,
that's fine. My position representing this board is not to put on testimony for the benefit of either the objector or the applicant. >> Okay? >> So, we're not going to hang our hat on my next word. >> Okay. >> To set the table on both of their
positions. We can opine before the end of the night. >> Okay. >> Do you have any >> anything else? So, if you have any addition, >> I just just another comment on um speaking to and
in all of the towns and multiples that I've reviewed where it says variable right of way that I've seen it change from 40 ft to 50 to 66 and back and forth. And I'm working on another application where 40 ft and they're asking for a 10-ft dedication for it to
be a 50-ft rideway. part of um development and what it what happens in the towns understanding the variable. The only point now with that of when I see a variable with
um that it it it does it can vary and go and you can see it in tax map where it jogs is the only point now is four across the street for lots five and 5.01 01 which are directly across from lot 6
is those are the deeds and subdivisions that had it at a 25 ft and a 50ft dedication. So the only other um opinion I can give now is saying if
they gave a 25 foot on that side and now the thought is it's a 66 does that mean our side has the additional >> 13 >> 13 yes 13T on our side or was it meant
that in this area it is supposed to be 50 ft 25 on both sides I'm not talking about um number one or lot 11 to the to the south or in other directly across the street.
Lots 5 and 5.01 had a 25- ft dedication and subdivision done to center line and that's why it's more enhanced on our side that it's the same 25 ft. While it can be variable plus and minus in different directions but directly across it would be the same
at 25 ft. Okay. Any other questions from the board? Okay. Then uh uh Mr. Simon, do you want to do you have any questions or at this point? Okay.
>> Yeah. As many questions. Can we just take a five minute break? >> Yes. Yes. Oh. Oh, I'm sorry. Liz and Joe. >> Do you need the um >> What's that? >> You want this?
>> Yeah, I guess I should do something. >> Press. I did. Oh yes. >> Turn your mics on >> here. here. >> Here >> Santiago here.
>> So, Mr. Simon, you ready to proceed? >> Sure. >> Miss Oststerorn, good evening. >> Good evening. Okay. So, I'm going to jump around a little bit, ask you a whole bunch of questions based
on um what you've submitted, what you've previously testified to both this evening and also in the prior meeting. Um, first question. So, your plan, the most recent plan that you put together has a
revision date of November 18th, 2025, correct? >> Yes. >> Okay. And that represents uh your latest um plan that you're submitting to the board for approval. Correct. >> Yes.
>> Okay. And the zoning table um reflects uh dimensions and calculations based not on a 66 ft right of way but a 50ft right ofway. Correct? >> Yes. >> And even based on the 50ft right ofway,
you are currently requesting or the applicant is currently requesting uh no less than eight variances. Correct. Yes, >> I'm going to want to have a document marked I guess. Can I have
this marked? Uh 01 I guess for objectors one. There you go. And then >> yes, it is for the board and the board professionals. And the record should
reflect that I gave a copy to council. No, we saw we didn't. Um, it is it is not >> I can certainly at the conclusion of this hearing make it available as I'm doing it on >> to the board and the board secretary.
>> No, it's onic. >> It's on. >> It's on. I'll I'll >> speak into it. I'll eat the mic as they say in the trades. I should know about that as Mr. Warner knows. Um, Miss Astraorn, I am showing you what I've
marked as 01. Um, it is a uh Cora Engineering septic design plan dated August 8th, 2024. Have you ever seen this plan before, ma'am?
>> Yes. >> Okay. And when's the last time you saw this plan? I I don't have a date to give you an answer. >> And what was the circumstances under which you saw this plan? >> They asked me for my CAD file.
>> Who's who's they? >> The Corga. >> Corga asked you for your CAD file. Explain what a CAD file is. >> It's a drawing format file for them to do their septic design off of. >> Okay. And when did Corga Engineering ask
you for your CAD file? >> Again, I I don't have a date. >> Okay. Um I'm going to show uh with regard to 01 at the bottom of the page, in the middle of the page,
it says general notes note number one. And I'm reading from the note. This map is not a boundary survey. The boundary geometry and topography were
taken from 35 schoolhouse lane boundary and topographical survey block um 3501 lot 6 I'm sorry 3501 lots 6.01 and 6.0 O
I'm sorry. Yeah, lot six. Township of Mars, Mars County, dated April 17th, 2024. Prepared by Amlin and Sternhorn and signed by Kirsten Auststerorn. Does that um number one note refresh
your recollection? >> Yeah. >> How does it refresh your recollection? >> That my survey was done in April 2024. >> Okay. Does that refresh your recollection as to when you first saw this septic design? >> No.
>> Okay. Number uh general note number two. Again, I am reading from the bottom of 01. This proposed layout were taken from 35 schoolhouse lane minor subdivision plat block 3501
locks lots 6.01 and 6.02 2 Township of Morris, Mars County, New Jersey. Dated April 17th, 2024. Prepared by Amlin and Sternhorn and signed by Kristen Austerorn.
You see that note? >> I do. >> Okay. Um, you prepared a minor subdivision plat dated April 17, 2024 for this property? >> Not that was signed and sealed. When did you prepare
the plan that was listed as note two on the Cora engineering septic design? >> I don't have a date on hand. >> Can you estimate for this board and the public when you prepared that subdivision plan that was ultimately
dated April 17th of 2024? >> I cannot off the top of my head. Does the review of this Corga engineering plan, septic design plan, refresh your recollection as to the information that was contained on that
minor subdivision plat that you did not sign apparently, but you provided to Cora Engineering? >> It does. >> Okay. And and what what did it show? >> We were working on conceptual designs. Nothing signed and sealed. When you say conceptual designs,
conceptual design for a minor subdivision application. >> No, >> the conceptual design for what? >> He did not the client did not give explicit to what he was planning for the property.
>> There there is a we'll start with the proposed lot line. You see that on 01? >> Yes. >> Did that proposed lot line come from either your boundary geometry and topographic
uh plan or from your minor subdivision plat. >> It's not my text type or file. I can't We were working with a bunch of different layouts, but that's not my uh font type that I use.
Is it possible that Corga Engineering used its own font type based on the information the proposed layout as is noted in general note number two? >> Yes, it's also possible they changed everything.
>> Do do you do you recall whether your minor subdivision plat lot 6.01 and 6.02 2 depicted a proposed lot line. >> No, I don't recall. >> Do you recall whether your
minor subdivision plat lot 6.01 and 6.02 actually depicted lot numbers 6.01 and 6.02? >> Yes, it did. >> And those two lots were separate or
separated by a lot line. Correct. There was text in a file that could have been manipulated. There was nothing defined nor signed document provided. When you say something could be manipulated, do do you know whether
Carga Engineering um manipulated the proposed lot line that it said according to its plan that was signed and sealed that was based on your minor subdivision plat. I can't
speak to that. No. >> With regard to the proposed twostory frame dwelling that is located on the left lot, proposed lot 6.01. Was that design part of your unsigned
minor subdivision plat dated April 17, 2024? >> That was part of my plot plan they use for building permits. So, when you say your plot plan, was your was the plot plan that showed the twostory frame dwelling. Was that on
either one of the April 17th, 2024 plans? >> I'm I'm not I'd have to look back to what I sent. I work very nicely with a lot of consultants. I'm not sure what was in the files exactly I sent at that date. Do you know where you received the
information to um lay out the proposed twostory frame dwelling with the proposed pool that is depicted on proposed lot 6.01 of 01 Cora engineering septic design >> from the homeowner
>> and do you >> from where >> the homeowner? >> Homeowner. Thank you. Please proceed. And did the did it come from the homeowner or did it come from the architect or both? >> It was the homeowner and their builder. >> Their builder. Do you remember the name
of the builder? >> Dear Builders, I think his name was Bill. And when did dear builders or Bill um or the owner provide you with this layout of a proposed twostory frame
dwelling for lot 6.01? >> I don't have that date. >> And there's no zoning or bulk table information depicted on 01. Correct.
>> On Cargo's plan. Yes. >> No. >> And on Corga's plan, there is depicted a um 100 ft radial distance from the well on uh proposed lot 6.01
to the proposed subdivision lot line. Correct. >> Yes. >> Yeah. Right. >> Over. And the septic design also proposes where it states schoolhouse lane a 66 foot right ofway. Correct.
>> Yes. >> And do you know whether Carga Engineering um received information that this was a 66 ft right of way from either one of your April 17th, 2024 plans that are noted in general notes on
the bottom of 01? I can't confirm how they did their notes. >> When did you perform the fieldwork that resulted in the April 17th boundary and topographical survey? I don't
I have the survey dated the April 13th. I don't have when the fieldwork was dated on our plans. >> I'm sorry. Just repeat that. I didn't hear >> I have the survey dated the April 13th, 2024. I don't have the fieldwork date offhand. Do you recall as you're testifying tonight under oath
approximately um how many weeks prior to April what' you say 13th or 17th? >> 13th. >> April 13th um 2024 that you were out in the field uh providing surveying for
that um boundary and topographical survey. >> I would estimate two to three weeks prior to that date. And with regard to the information that is contained on your minor subdivision plat dated April
17th, 2024 um including uh layout of driveway etc. Um do you recall approximately when you uh performed fieldwork to provide that information on your sub minor
subdivision plan? I'm sorry. Can you repeat that? >> Sure. Do you rec based on when did you perform the fieldwork that resulted in the creation of your minor subdivision
plat that's referenced in general note two? that that note is the one I'm not I'm unsure of of what they're referring to because we we did our surveying field work. The client moved forward with preparing
his house and then we were engaged with subdivision. >> Okay. So, are you telling me that you did not are you telling me under oath that you did not prepare a minor subdivision plat for this property dated
April 17, 2024? I cannot confirm that at this moment. I don't have my records in front of me to say what I did or did not send to people. Okay. >> Do you have records um that are back at your office to um verify
the information that you actually sent to Cora Engineering? >> Yes. >> Regarding the minor subdivision plat dated April 17, 2024. >> Yes, I have my emails with Corga that yes, I can confirm information. I just don't know off the top of my head from a
year and a half ago. Mhm. And the your minor subdivision plot dated April 17, 2024 was not referenced or noted on your submitted subdivision plan originally
dated May 20th, 2025, nor referenced on your most recent November 2025 um minor subdivision plan. Correct. >> Yes. And it seems that the project number
that you used for uh the subdivision 24324 was the same project number throughout. Correct? >> Yes. And do you recall uh whether the uh information that you received from
the owner or the architect showing the layout of the proposed two-story frame dwelling for proposed lot 6.01 01 included a full set of architectural plans >> for his specific house.
>> Yes. Like that that >> Yeah. >> Right. So you got a So prior to April 17th, 2024, you received a full set of a proposed twostory frame dwelling for lot 6.01. Correct. >> No, not prior to that date. So, how how
did you know prior to okay, April 17, 2024 >> that it was going to be a four bedroomedroom home with a proposed uh covered front porch, a proposed deck,
proposed covered deck, proposed salana, proposed pool, and a walkway in the locations shown on the Cora engineering plan that references your subdivision plan. >> I was provided a conceptual plan from a
modular home contractor that he was working with. Nothing. I You asked for a full set of architectural drawings. I was not provided that. I was a conceptual drawing that was one page and Cora asked for how many bedrooms for
them to do a septic design. And that's all that matters at that point. So you're saying to me that the design that were that is shown on the Cora uh Cora engineering plan dated
August 8th, 2024 where it states in the note the layout was taken from your minor subdivision plat. So that that home was based on a modular home one page. It was based on a
conceptual home. >> And that conceptual home had all the details, design details that I just described. >> Yes. And so
ultimately you prepared um an additional plan for your client. entitled site preparation plan. Correct. >> Yes.
>> I'd like to mark this as O2, please. Mr. Ostster, I'm just going to wait a second till the board members have copies. Thanks for your patience. Yeah, right there. Miss Oscar, I'm going to show you what's
been marked as O2, which is entitled Schoolhouse Lane Site Preparation Plan. It's prepared by Amlin and Ostraorn and signed by you with a date of September 9th, 2024.
Correct? >> Yes. What is what is the site preparation plan? Uh the plan is showing the home to be demolished, the concrete pool, septic area to be
removed, the shed was supposed to be demolished, but it wasn't yet. fence to be removed, slate the site to be cleaned up. >> So is is that what you just described for
uh for sheet one? >> Yes. >> Okay. So she sheet one is showing what is going to be removed. Correct? >> Yes. and it identifies um a one-story frame dwelling that
existed at the time. Correct. >> Yes. >> It does not show any subdivision line. Correct. >> No. >> And on the first page, it says schoolhouse lane 66 ft. Correct. >> Yes, it does. >> That you prepared?
>> Yep. >> Okay. Do you recall what um what formed the basis for you? um identifying schoolhouse lane as a 66- ft right ofway. At the time, >> initially at that time when we did the
survey, we had found some evidence. We didn't have a full title search or the background that we have at this time. So, we had noted it based on the mapping that was provided and the deed for this
specific lot called it to it. Uh, >> wait, wait, wait. Excuse me. The deed for this specific lot for for this lot called it >> this called for the >> Sorry. No, I apologize.
When we did the survey, we did not have a full title surge done at the time. We were provided an older deed when we did it back in April. It was before, well, I guess the owner had purchased it. we only got the present owner deed which
didn't have the full back title to it that then when we researched it further. >> Okay, so let's let's back up um because I just want to make sure it's clear. So, in April of 2024,
you identified um based on the Cora Engineering septic design that referred to your both survey and minor subdivision plat the right of way for schoolhouse lane was 66
ft. Correct? >> No. >> No. Okay. Corger referred to my survey that was from April and my survey from April referred to an older deed where called to the center line was a 1960 deed and it didn't specify
a right of way. So then, so then in April, so do you know how it came about that on his septic design that he calls out in reference to your plans from
April of 2024, a 66 ft right of way for schoolhouse lane? >> Yes. He referenced my survey. >> My survey called for that at that point in time. >> Okay. And so your survey that called out
that at that point in time was based on what documentation? >> We at that point in time only had a deed from 1960. >> And what in the 1960 deed led you to
conclude that the right of way for schoolhouse lane was 66 ft? it called to the center line and it was not specified and there was further information that referenced the old road map specifically for that lot only. And it wasn't until
this entire application that we researched the entire block of information to find all the other information for the 50ft right ofway >> and the road map that you're referring to for this lot only.
What road map are you referring to? >> Road map. >> What's the number? Sorry. >> Sorry, one second. >> Take your time. >> Thank you. Roadbook A represents the first road book in Morris County and references the
1783 and 1784 right of ways that were registered. It was a right of roadbook A. >> Okay. And that's what you're referring to in your testimony a moment ago. >> Yes. >> Correct. Okay. And so now we're up to
August uh 8th uh 2024. The site preparation plan um that shows a 66 ft right ofway for schoolhouse lane. Was that 66 ft dimension again
based on the late700 information that you just referred to? >> Yes. We didn't re-review the right of way until our last meeting in October of 2025.
>> And going back to O2 for a moment on page on sheet one of three, see where your title block is? It says site preparation plan. Underneath the title site preparation plan, it states block
3501 lots 6.01 01 and 6.02. Do you see that sheet one of three that you signed? Do you see that for O2? >> Oh, no. Sorry.
>> Yes. >> Okay. So at the time on August 8th of 20 I'm sorry September 9th bad eyesight
September 9th of 2024 when you're depicting or you're stating it's lot 6.01 and 6.02 neither one of those lots are in existence at the time. Correct.
>> Correct. And this site preparation plan was not prepared by you in contemplation of a subdivision application. Correct. >> No.
>> Do you know why the title block says block 3501 lot 6.01 and 6.02? because I was preparing a set of plans for a site plan set that's a three sheet set that includes the subdivision as part of it. So you were creating a
subdivision set as early as September 9th of 2024. >> Yes. So when you were creating a subdivision set application on September um as of
September 9th of 2024, was that a continuation of the subdivision work that you were doing as early as April of 2024? >> Honestly, I don't know.
I I we we document dates in our company and site plans as we progressing them may not fit your answer. I'm sorry. Who told you to prepare this site preparation plan?
>> My client. >> Why did your client tell you to prepare a site preparation plan? because he was demolishing his building. >> Well, he wasn't just demolishing the building because if we go to
sheet two of three on O2, you're actually showing a proposed new building, correct? >> Yes. And on that on sheet two of three, you're also identifying
a zoning table with bulk items. And the zoning table is for what I'll call the mother lot, the entirety of lot six. Correct? >> Yes. as if this was an application for an approval
to build one house on lot six without a subdivision line or development on of a second lot. Correct? >> Yes. And whether it's
building coverage, setbacks, lot coverage, everything was calculated based on one house being developed and constructed on this lot. Correct. >> Yes.
And in fact, it states on general notes boundary and topographic information based on your survey dated April 13, 2024. That's correct. >> Yes.
And the information that's on here on sheet two of three was based on information that was provided by the architect. >> Yes.
and the precise layout of the home where it's located on lot six that was
at the direction of the architect. >> Yes. And on sheet two of three of O2, it's identified as plot plan. Correct? >> Yes.
>> And underneath the words plot plan on your title block, it again says block 3501, lots 6.01 and 6.02. Correct? >> Yes. >> Lot 6.01 and 6.02 2 did not exist at the
time. Correct. >> Correct. >> Nor at the time were they being proposed as contained within this site preparation plan and plot plan. Correct. >> Yes. >> And going on to
lot I'm sorry sheet and I'm sorry sheet two of three also shows schoolhouse lane at 66 ft. Correct. >> Yes. Going to sheet three of three. If you go to the title block,
it states plot plan for 35 schoolhouse lane subdivision plan block 3501 lots 6 and 6.01. So the numbers changed from 6.01 to and
6.02 to lot 6 and 6.01. Do you know why that was? >> Typographical error >> and is shot I'm sorry. Sheet three of three is sheet three of three in fact the
subdivision plan? >> No. >> What is sheet three of three? >> Soil erosion and sediment control plan. Does sheet three of three depict the subdivision? >> No. >> Does anything on O2 identify
bulk standards for two lots? >> No. um regarding your testimony about the title.
Now, you're not a you're not a title expert, correct? Yeah, right. Um you have never conducted a property record search, correct? We we did do a title search on the property. >> No. No. Have you ever gone to the county
recording office and and ever in your career done a title search? >> No. >> Have you ever testified in any uh quiet title litigation or other matter? >> No.
Have you ever testified before regarding the correct right of way with on a particular street? >> No. Are you familiar with any case law
including the seminal Sloinsky case which is an appellet division case from 1994 I believe that discusses the standards and law regarding right-of-way widths
and how to determine them. No. >> So, the right of way for Schoolhouse Lane was created in the late 1700s as a 66 ft road, correct? >> Yes. Do you
know of any legal or engineering or surveying authority whereby filing a deed that references a 50ft right ofway or dedicating 25 ft of a
right of way or what's depicted as a right-of-way width on a tax map. Change a 66- foot wide right of way that was
created in the late 1700s. Are you aware of any authority for that proposition? >> I'm not aware of a legal authority. And you're not aware of any recorded
vacation of a portion of the schoolhouse lane right of way since the late 1700s. Correct. >> Only dedications. >> You're not aware of any township resolution that vacated any portion of
the right of way that just happened to never be recorded. Correct. >> Only the dedication. Are you aware of any dedication of land by the township to any adjacent property owner along Schoolhouse Lane?
>> No. and your current subdivision plan from November 18th, 2025 still doesn't show the right of way on the other side of the road. Correct. >> Correct. >> And it still doesn't show the location
of properties on the other side of the road. Correct. >> I didn't think you'd want to see them. Well, do you know the location of wells that may happen to be on the
other side of the road in relation to your proposed septic system? >> The wells? No, that would be on Kagga. The houses, yes. >> Wait, the the wells? No, that would be on K. >> Cara septic design. cargo when they have
to do a septic design. I wasn't the septic engineer. They had to research wells within 100 ft of the septic system. We did locate houses across the street. It just wasn't favorable for you honestly of where they located
in respect to a 66t rightway. So, we didn't show them. >> Okay. Um I'm sorry, Chris. I'm just trying to clarify your testimony here on 01. I'm looking at the Cora engineering
plant and I'm seeing a 150 foot radius I guess from the from the septic field. >> Yes. >> Right. >> Yes. >> And it shows one house across the street, right? >> Mhm.
>> Do you know looking at this plan whether there's a well? >> No. >> It's not. It's where do you know where that well is for lot five? No. >> Okay. >> That would be on Kiego's responsibility to locate that well.
>> Okay. So, that's not part of your your job. >> Nope. >> For this project? >> Nope. >> Um, okay. with regard to what Nancy marked as A3, A4, A5, and A6
that she walked through with you tonight. Did you prepare A3, A4, A5, or A6? >> Which ones? A3 is my letter. >> Yeah.
>> Did Did you Okay. >> I did not prepare A3. >> Okay. Did you participate in the creation of A3? >> I reviewed it after it was written. >> Okay. But you didn't you didn't participate in its creation. Correct. >> A4 is the I think it's the master plan
from 2020. A portion of the master plan from 2012. >> You can participate in that. Correct. >> I think that's 84. Pretty sure >> Mr. Warren >> Steve. >> Yes. >> Master plan 2012 circulation.
>> So that's A4. You didn't participate in that? >> Did not participate in that. >> Right. Um A5 is the schoolhouse lane right ofway deed references the six pages. Did you participate in creating that? >> I reviewed it with her, but uh Miss uh
Lenel, she created it first. >> She did it. She did it all. So you didn't create A5 at all. Correct. No. >> And um A6 the tax map exhibit um the two sheets um did you participate in the
creation of that in any way? Right. So basically what you did to create based on A3, A4, A5 and A6 is that on A6 you took the tax map and you that we're only looking we only got tonight for the
first time and the other documentation for the record hundreds of pages we received for the first time this afternoon that ace the only thing you created of all of all those exhibits
was you put in the co the common address number on the tax map for each one of the lots. Correct? >> Yes. >> And then you superimposed some information that was on um Miss
Lenville's um A5 onto that map. Correct. >> Yes. You have not reviewed each of the deeds yourself, correct? >> I have. >> You have. Okay, good. Um,
were you you're not aware of any of the searches performed by the surveyors who created the meets and bounds um on those deeds? Correct. >> No.
You don't know if any of the searches performed by those surveyors to create the meets and bounds you referred to went back to the late 1700s. Correct. >> Correct. And just to clarify and I believe it was
it was asked earlier by a member of the board I don't remember who that if the right of way is 66 ft and not 50 ft the deviations from the ordinance standard for each of the eight categories for
which you require variance relief would be exacerbated intens ified greater correct >> yes >> the >> you talked about sorry just give me a second
on the current plan the November 2025 plan. On sheet two, there's a reference to a 66 ft right of way per mo per road map and 50-foot
right of way per evidence and town tax maps. Right. >> Yes. >> Okay. the evidence and town tax maps that you're referring to here, is that the information that was provided this
evening? >> Yes. >> And that was contained in um A34. Sorry, let's be clear. A3, A4, A5, and A6. Correct? I want to confirm what they are
before I say yes. >> Yeah. Yeah, it's okay. I'll I'll go through it with you again. I'm sorry. That's my No, that's my bad. A3 is the five-page letter from council. A4 is the 2012 master plan circulation page. A5 is the six-page schoolhouse lane right
ofway deed references uh that council prepared. And A6 was the tax map exhibit two sheets where you superimposed the common address and the in some information that was contained on A5. >> Yes. So
with regard to the pins that you referred to um that were neither of which were called out in the deed for the subject property. Correct. >> Correct. And you when you say called out in the deeds
for the subject property, are you talking about a description that was contained in a 1960 deed for this property or something prior or subsequent? >> Any of the deeds didn't call for
>> Okay. When you say any of the deeds because you didn't do the search, correct? For for this property. >> Correct. Okay. So, what deeds are you referring to? What's the earliest or oldest deed that you're referring to?
>> Hold on one second. Don't have debbook and page on the top of my head. >> That's all right. Take your time. >> Thank you. There's one before. the deed we have on record that was from 2023. There were three deeds prior to that, but I don't have those on hand to
refer to from 1985 and 1998. >> Okay. >> That were all prior. But the one that we do have did not call to a property corner. >> Okay. And the one that you do have is from what year?
>> 2023. >> So >> one before that was 1998 and then 1985. >> Okay. So the 19 um 98, right? Is that what you said? >> 1998 and then 1985.
>> Okay. So 1985 and the 1998 deeds you have not reviewed. Correct. >> I honestly I don't want to say the wrong thing. I might have them in my files. I just don't know off the top of my head. I was given a document. I just can't I
don't have them in front of me to answer that question properly. >> Okay. Um, I don't want you to guess. Do you have anything in your records here that tend to indicate that you reviewed any deed for the subject property prior to 1985?
>> No. >> Have you reviewed any deed for the lot 8 property next door? Yeah. >> Is that Yes. >> That's a yes.
>> Okay. Um, >> what's the >> Wish I had your questions beforehand. >> Oh, sorry. >> You could have them all with me, >> right? Um, can you um either yourself or have Nancy help you identify the lot 8 deeds uh
meets and bounds that you reviewed? It's on the same side of the street. >> No. >> Yes. Correct. >> Correct. Okay, I'm looking at the deed. >> And what's the um year of that deed?
2000 June 20th 2000 and that's the deed that you reviewed that led you to conclude that it doesn't call out um I think what you referred to in your testimony as the Richard Smith
pin. It just says beginning at a point in the middle of the road >> and point being >> and who prepared that uh meets and bounds? >> I don't see a name. >> I don't see a name. Okay. And what what
was the year of the survey that was performed >> for this deed? >> Yes. that was referenced in the in the uh in the deed. Can I I I'll even I'm happy to take a look at it if you want to show it to me. Okay, let's see.
Okay. Okay. So there's no there's no date or identification as to who performed uh the survey to create these meets and bounds. Correct? >> No. >> Okay. And so um
you haven't reviewed any deed prior to the year 2000 uh for lot 8 that references a legal description. Correct? >> No. And when you um
prepared your site prep uh preparation plan O2 dated September 9th, 2024, which was subsequent to your preparation, although unsigned, of a minor
subdivision plat. Let me actually strike the question. When you uh prepare your unsigned minor subdivision plat dated April of 2024, did you conclude at the time that
as a result of that subdivision that not one but both of those subdivided lots would require variance relief? No, >> you didn't. As part of that minor subdivision plat creation from April of 2024, you did not perform that analysis
at all. >> Could you clarify the question? >> Sure. when you created the minor subdivision plat April of 2024 that's specifically referenced in the
Korea engineering septic design as a note at the time you created that plan even if it was unsigned by you did you form a conclusion or do an investigation as to whether variance relief would be
required for any such subdivision. >> No, it wasn't a any formal research or documentation that was done. That's why there was no formal of anything that was submitted, referred to, or otherwise.
It it wasn't a conclusive type of due diligence or anything that was done for the property. So that line that was ended up being referred to a plan that was referred to was nothing conclusive of any sort of full investigation on the
property. Do you recall ever creating a minor or major subdivision plan without first first ascertaining
the zoning requirements in the zone where the subdivision is being proposed? >> I don't recall You know, I'm going to stop right there. Thank you. >> Are there any questions from other
members of the public? Okay. Uh, so where are we here? >> Um, >> we have no Mr. Simon, you've completed your cross- examination of this witness on all on all issues and all materials
provided to date. >> Other than I would make a formal well, two things. >> Okay. >> Sorry, I apologize. Number one is certainly and I expressed this in an email earlier today to the board that given the fact
that we received hundreds of pages literally of materials the day of a hearing that go to as admitted to the to the credit of the applicant. Frankly admitted to be the a
critical issue as to how to measure the deviations as material to any subdivision application and receiving it for the first time today that the after not even
the afternoon of the hearing that we certainly reserve our right to go back and review that material that admittedly have not had an opportunity to fully review um and reserve our right to ask additional questions of this witness of
the witness um upon reviewing that information. That's number >> objection applicants council. >> Thank you. Please proceed. And and number two that you know I referenced and demonstrated that certainly there
were two plans. A boundary and topographical survey plan and a minor subdivision plat plan by the witness created by the witness signed or unsigned dated April of 2024.
And I would ask the uh chair and members of the board to consider having the witness present that at the next meeting provided to the board have it available members of the
public at least 10 days prior. >> And does the applicants council object to providing that on a voluntary basis per the request of objectors council? I am unclear what it is he's asking us to do.
>> I think it was the survey and the minor subdivision plan that the that Miss Oxenhorn stated as to the latter was not signed and sealed. I believe they were April 2024 dates if
I recall correctly. >> I'm sorry. Well, it's a request of of objectors council. If she if that would be provided voluntarily uh at the request of the objector's council, >> I agree to review the file and see what we
have and it's available for >> Okay. And provided to the board and and uh council at least 10 days prior if it's located at least 10 days prior. >> Thank Thank you. Yeah, your re, you know, your request
for time to review is certainly reasonable. You know, as it is for us, we didn't see them until now either. So, no, that makes perfect sense. And I think that, you know, the applicant did recognize that that it was less. So, certainly >> and and and for the record, the the
applicant did reach out to me this afternoon and did provide me the information this afternoon, of course. >> But but yeah, it is a lot. So, um, so at this point, I guess we need to >> just to confirm, uh, Mr. the the on
behalf of the applicant, you have no further witnesses or testimony or documentary evidence to present this evening, correct? >> Correct. >> Okay. So, you wish to have the matter carry? >> Yes, we do. Okay. >> Okay. Thank you. >> You do wish to So, do we have an opening
on the calendar? I just want to say actually I'm sorry parenthetically. So I've been before this board board of adjustment for many many many years and there is no one better than Sonia and she will be and I
and I mean that regardless of the side of the aisle that you're on. >> Yes. really, you know, great work. >> Thank you for that. >> Thank you. >> I don't think that's going to change the date, though. >> Besides, she's leaving. So, better
doesn't do any good now. >> Well, that's that's why I I said it. I know that I can't influence her. >> Okay. Hold on. I um >> I have a I have a I have a double conflict. Oh.
Mr. Simon says a double conflict on that date. So >> good. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> February 1st. >> That's a Sunday. >> February 1st. >> 1st. >> February 1st is a Sunday according to my
calendar. >> February 1st is a Sunday. 2026. >> Yeah, >> he's already retired. >> That's very well said. Yeah, >> the sec the second is Monday. I'm available then.
>> Yeah, Monday, February 2nd is Groundhog Day. >> Perfect. >> Great. >> The rule of the rule is no jokes. Is that acceptable to >> boy
to that date? And I should be long enough that I should be able to lock down my additional >> witnesses. Is that it then? So that's our date. >> February 2nd. >> February. >> Okay. So this this matter will be
carried without further notice to Monday, February 2nd, 700 p.m. at the same location, the municipal building. >> Okay. >> Oh, yes. I'm sorry. Yeah, please do. Thank you for putting that on the record, but please also if you would
send an email of consenting to an extension of time to act through the end of the month of February if you would please. >> End of the month of February. >> End of February. >> Oh, >> thank you. Okay. >> Thank you.
>> Thank you. Okay. Um, >> we did for questioning. Yeah. >> Yes. No questions. >> Yes, we did ask for questions. Yes, we did. Right. So, we're all we're all set. So, we move on. >> Well, at least they won't quarter then.
>> That's not a surprise. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Okay. Moving on. Any other matters to the legislative committee? >> Nothing. Nothing. Uh, time for public comments on matters not before the board
tonight. Any general comments? Seeing none, we'll close that. And no reason for a close session at this point. >> Not this evening. >> Okay. I will entertain Miss Oh, you're in the right seat, >> Mr. Chairman.
>> A little louder, I would. >> Yeah. A little faster, too. >> Yeah. Turn the light on slow >> for contrast. >> All right. I'd like to make a motion that we adjourn the meeting. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> All in favor? I
>> Thank you for coming out tonight. >> Yes. Thank you very much.