I now call to order the regular meeting of the Township of Morris Planning Board on for Monday, May 4th, 2026. Uh would you please revise your Oh, wait a minute. I need to Sorry. First the legal notice the legal notice required in accordance with the open public meetings
act has been satisfied and a statement certifying Sam will be executed. Thank you. Now, please join me in the pledge of allegiance. I alian to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it
stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all >> to call the role Mr. >> Miss Van order >> here >> Mr. Flowers >> here >> Mr. Rabbits >> here >> Miss Murphy >> here >> Mr. Benois
>> here >> Mr. Quen >> here, >> Miss Grigia >> here, >> Mr. B >> here. >> Our acting board attorney today is Chris Soies >> here. >> Our board planner, Miss Laney >> here, >> and our uh board engineer, Mr. Voch, should be with us shortly.
>> I am Ryan Gerbett, board secretary. >> Uh, okay. First order of business. Then there'll be consideration the minutes for the March 2nd meeting. Any comments on the corrections on the on those minutes? And if not, I will entertain a motion to
approve the minutes. >> So moved. >> Is there a second? >> Seconded. >> All in favor? >> I. >> Okay. Thank you. Members are approved. Okay. We have no resolutions. So we can move with that. Clear that up. Uh I
guess we could get started on the public hearing then. Um we'll wait for Mr. VC who should be here shortly but we could get going I believe you want to introduce that Ryan just briefly and that all okay
this matter is a continuation from the October 20 and December 1, 2025 public hearings. The applicant is proposing a minor subdivision to create an additional lot. Uh the applicant will also be seeking variances for the lot area.
>> Mr. Sioki, you want to >> Yes, Mr. Chairman. I'll make a brief statement on the notice and this is uh the application of Mark and Lynn Piccolo uh concerning property 35 schoolhouse lane. Uh the applicant did provide additional notice for this evening u new notice and I deem it to be uh sufficient
both in terms of its content and timeliness of service. We sent by certified mail the owners of property within 200 feet of the subject property on April 24th of 2026 and published in the daily record on April 24th 2026 as well both more than 10 days in advance of tonight's hearing and thus the board
has the jurisdiction hearing inside the case in my humble legal opinion. Um so that's uh that's that. >> Okay. >> Thank you. Then I guess >> yeah come up and >> but I believe uh Liz was sworn already
at the previous one of the previous hearings as was Joe. So they're sworn >> I'll let Mr. introduction the mic on the bottom. No problem. Here we go.
>> You got him right. Okay. All right. Good evening, uh, Mr. Chairman, members of the board, Jason Tuell, attorney for the applicant. Uh, before I get started on the on the on the merits of the application and the substance, I just want to thank the board for their patience. I know this this application has been pending for a
little bit while a little bit and we've had to reschedule a few times and I really appreciate that. And my my colleague, Miss Ladenville, wish she could have been here to continue this. Unfortunately, she's been dealing with a family, a medical emergency that she's had to tend to. So, um hopefully she'll
be back soon. Uh but you got me now for better or for worse. Um so, this is an application, if the board recalls, for subdivision approval for block 3501, lot 6. Uh the lot is 4.51 acres. Um and
there's a brand new residential home on the property um as it exists um today. So, the goal is to subdivide the property. And I'm just going to kind of refresh everybody's memory because the last time we were here was back in December, believe it or not. So, it's been some time. So, just bear with me. I'm just going to do a little refresher
and then we can get into the into the testimony. So, it's lot six, 35 Schoolhouse Lane. And the goal is to subdivide it to two separate parcels. So, we have the first parcel, which would be lot 6.01. Um, that lot would be
87,249 square feet or 2.003 acres and that's with the 50-foot ride-of-way dedication that was I know discussed at some at length at the last couple meetings or the lot would be 84,834
ft or 1.947 acres. That's with the 66 ft lot dedication and I'll get to all that in a minute. Lot 6.02 would be 93,930 ft or 2.156 acres with the 50ft right
ofway dedication or 91,532 ft or 2.101 acres with a 66 ft dedication. So just to get into the dedication issue. So I know there's been a lot of correspondence. There was a lot of questioning back and forth of of
witnesses at the last couple meetings about whether or not um the right of way along schoolhouse lane is 50 ft or it's 66 ft. Um all the maps that we have reviewed showed 50 right away.
>> I'm sorry. >> 50 a 50 foot right away. All the maps that we that we that we reviewed including the town's tax maps. Um, in addition to that, we had researched and we sent in correspondence to the board back in December of last year saying
that other subdivisions along this route that the board had granted had also had 50 foot dedications referenced within those deeds. So, it had been consistent over time that it was 50 ft. Um, however, and we submitted OPER requests
for any sort of mapping resolutions, ordinances that the municipality had in relation to anything that's showing a 66 ft. Um, there are none of those. We have there was no ordinances or resolutions to that effect. However, I did receive
in response to the OPRA just an update to the tax map coincidentally on January 30th of 2026 after we filed the application that the right of way in this little area has now been increased to 66 ft. I don't know if that's
coincidental to this application that that occurred. However, what I'm what we're going to do as part of this application now, and you've seen it on the revised plans that you have, is we're going to take a conservative approach and leave it up to the board.
So, our plans now show all the dimensions at 66 ft as it relates to our property. We don't think it makes a material difference whatsoever based on how large our our properties are. We don't think it makes a material
difference whatsoever. We think that it the 50 ft should apply based on a the mapping b when we filed um and c based on prior actions that the municipality has taken. But let's assume worst case scenario that the 60 for us the worst
case scenario for us that you believe that the 66 ft rightway applies. We're going to put on all of our proofs as if the 66 ft right ofway um applies. Again, I don't know how that um map revision occurred in January. Um but the map was
revised along this stretch to be 66 ft. >> Which map? Which map is this? The revision? >> There was the tax map for the municipality. >> Okay. And and uh based on that, I don't know. Um I I we asked if there were any ordinances or resolutions amending it.
We we were told there weren't any, but we were given a map that has a revision date. So again, we're just going to be conservative on this and just go with the 66 ft because again, we feel that the the application is justified even with that with that larger taking. Okay.
So just in terms of what we're going to show tonight. So first and foremost, we're going to demonstrate um in this case that the lots that we're proposing are consistent with the with the lots within this vicinity. In fact, our lots
that we're proposing are even larger than some of the ones in the immediate areas. And that's one. Two is there's no doubt that we need variances for the fact that these lots are undersized. No one's running from that whatsoever. Um again, we think it's consistent with what's in the surrounding area, but the
project as as it is going to be presented meets all the setback requirements in the zone. So if you look at front yard for example where the ordinance requires um 100 ft one lot is at 134.2 the other lot's at 113.9
um and that's with the again that larger taking being accounted for in our numbers. All right the rear yard for example one of the lots is 134 ft the other rear yard is 266 feet again where the 100 ft is required.
So from a setback perspective, the application is more than compliant. The application complies with parking under RSIs. It complies with um with building height or will comply with building height for the um for the for the building that has not been constructed.
And then as far as coverages go, which I think is a good metric of um of of utilization of the property. So the building coverage for the existing lot cuz I know everybody's probably familiar there's a house on one of the proper on the property now. So once the lot with
the house on it is subdivided that would be at 4.5% building coverage. Your ordinance permits 10. So it would be a little less than half um of what's permitted. The other lot would be at 3.7% again where 10%'s allowed. And then
from a lot coverage perspective in terms of all the impervious or paved areas, building, sidewalks, driveways, patios, etc., the lot that has the current house on it would be at roughly the engineer will go into the more detailed numbers,
16% which is under the 25% that's allowed. And the other lot would be at approximately 11% again where 25% is allowed. there's a lot less impervious surface being proposed by this application. So with that, and I appreciate everybody
indulging me in a little bit of a background, I'm going to recall our engineer surveyor that testified at the last meeting or the last meetings because I think again a refresher for everybody would be helpful. I understand that means that Mr. Simon or any member
of the public can cross that person again. I understand that. But I think it's beneficial for the for the for the board and the public just to hear the hear some of the just have a little summary and then we'll go into our professional planner. Is that is that okay, Mr. Chairman?
>> Yes, I think that's a reasonable course of action given that what's happened so far? >> And again, we're going to present as if the 66 ft applies even though we believe the 50 ft applies. and I'll leave it up to the board to as to whether they think
one or the other is um the appropriate metric. All right. Okay. So, with that said, um I'd be happy to call our first witness or call her back. Um Kirsten Auststerorn, who's our professional land surveyor and engineer.
I think the I think um Ryan had you have the plans up there if they >> Yeah, but we'll we'll put the board up as well just so the public can see them if they go on the screen. >> Ryan, you going to put it on the screen also? So, Mr. Simon and other members of
the public can also see it. >> And this is the plan set dated April 23rd, 2026, right? >> No, not this. >> That's an exhibit. That's the plans that we got more than 10 days in advance. >> Yes. >> Don't need to be marked. This one does. >> Yep.
>> Yeah. We have not seen this >> in this form, right? >> Miss Austorn, believe you were previously sworn. Your license still is current in good standing. >> Yes. >> I'll swear you in again. Uh, listen, Joe. I'll swear you guys in again too just to be safe. Uh do all three of you swear old firm testimony. You got to
provide the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth. So we got >> great. Thank you so much. Mr. Tubell, I don't know if you'll accept her as a licensed surveyor and professional engineer. Correct. >> Yes. >> Both licenses in good standing. >> Yes. >> Thank you.
>> All right. So Kirsty just orient the board to the site and just some of the surrounding areas and then we'll just get back into the proposal. Let me get Let's just mark this first. >> I think we're on to A8, but that's what I That's what I thought. >> Yeah, this would be A8.
>> Okay. This was a tax M tax map exhibit we prepared for 35 schoolhouse. So, we are uh block 3501 lot 6. It's the 4 and 1/2 acre lot. Right. Okay.
>> Sorry to cut you off. So, tax map exhibit dated today. >> Uh, it was dated actually 111825. >> Okay. >> I just printed it today. >> Okay. >> Okay. So, our lot, lot six, this is
number 35. So, what we're trying So, this is a 4 and 1/2 acre lot. And so to the don't have a north arrow. Go north. Up on the page. >> Up on the page is north. So >> yes, we're going to go with that right now. Thank you. Um we have lot five
that's behind it. And then we continue up on schoolhouse lane. We have lot four 1.97 acres. Lot three is 1.8 acres. And then we go across the street. We have Where are my lot numbers? Oh, there it
is. 5.01. Um, f across the street. Five is 3 acres. We have lot 5.02. And if we go to the south, lot 8 is 1.4 acres. Lot 9 is 2.6. And we keep going south on the page. The
other points of this exhibit is to show through the deed research across the street at lot 5.02 2 there was deed books and pages for dedications that were done at 25 ft half widths
which is a 50ft right ofway. Um across the street again at lot 5 there was another lot dedication for 25 ft halfwidth. When we go across the street at 5.01 there's a 50ft rightway reference. Uh when we go up the street
there was a deed book. Uh this is for lot 35.01 01 lot 2 that has a 50ft rightway. So part of this whole exhibit and then this tax map that is being referenced is the last revision date is 121614
and it shows a 50 foot right of way >> and you're you're aware that we received an updated tax map. >> Yes. And I have that too. Okay. So the purpose of this is to show everything in the neighborhood that's been done over the years is showing a 50 foot right of
way. So speaking to our survey that we did, we initially showed a 50ft right ofway. I will I'm going to give the exhibit now too. >> Okay. I have it's just a handout though. So what are we going to call this one?
>> Exhibit A9. Is that a handout? This is >> No, this is a separate I didn't have it on full scale because I didn't didn't print that way. >> Okay. This is just a new map that that I referenced was updated. >> So 2026 tax map exhibit sound like a good time.
>> It is refer It is revised 130 2026. >> Thank you. >> Sorry, was it too sheet? So on this tax map revised January 30th, 2026, the tax map was revised to a 66 foot right away.
So speaking to what Mr. Chvel was saying, we've been going back and forth about this, but regardless of it, this is a lot we have whether it's 50 or 66 foot, we're presenting our application in both aspects on the conservative side of 66 foot. the town ends up meeting to
be the decision factor of what they want to do with it. >> So, let's go now. >> Yes. >> This is what was submitted. >> Yes. >> These are revised April 23rd. >> Yes.
>> Okay. >> Uh I'm going to That was the cover sheet. I don't want to talk about this sheet. Okay. Sorry, this is the existing conditions uh sheet two of three of my plan set revised
through April 23rd, 2026. This is showing at the time the existing building that's under construction and what currently exists on the site. And we show in blue and green is a 66 ft right ofway per the road maps and then a
50ft right ofway per the evidence and town tax maps and history that we're working with. So we're showing the difference. It's an 8ft difference that is between the two right ofways on our side of the property. >> Just explain I'm sure the way but just
explain what is is this the April plan? >> No was just a tax. >> No no no no. What? >> This is the April plan. >> 66. >> Oh. Oh. Oh. Oh. Cuz it says >> Yeah, there's two lines. Thank you.
>> Made me nervous. >> Yeah. So, just just to be clear, just the reason that you're saying the 8 difference even though 506 is my third 16. Just explain why. >> Yes. full. >> So a right of way is supposed to be
centered on the street and so a 50 foot from the center of the street you have 25 on one side and 25 for a 66 ft rightway you have 33 and 33. So the the difference is a 16 ft difference and so it's split 8 and 8. So we have eight on
our side and then eight would go to the other side of the street for their right of way. >> I don't have anything else on this one. So now you're on three. >> Now I'm on sheet three, which does everyone have it in color? Okay,
good. Cuz this one didn't print out in color. I'm just checking. So, we updated our zoning chart to give both the 50 foot and the 66 ft uh dimensions and the information about
it of whether we have a 50ft rightway over 66 ft right ofway. Either way, we have variances. So, at this point, we're just establishing the variance number and what we're going for. We're going for a single family two
lot subdivision. Uh the owners own lot six what would be 6.01. They're under construction have built their house on 6.021 and then we are subdividing to potentially be able to subdivide and build on 6.02.
The current requirements are for a 3 acre lot. Under the existing conditions, uh we have four and a half acres uh with a 50 foot right ofway and a four acres with a 66 foot right of way. Once
we you you give the dedication on the bottom of the property, as Mr. Tvel explains, for the numbers purposes for the testimony, under lot 6.01, under a 50ft rightway, the lot area would be 2.03 03 acres and under a 66 ft
right ofway it would be 1.947. For a lot 6.02 the areas would be 2.156 versus 2.101. So under both cases are slightly about an acre under the requirement that is
under the ordinance. Similarly, the variances we have the requirements for lot width at a your required 300 foot lot width. The lot width is defined as your lot width along
the road. So, under existing conditions are at 615 ft. Under current existing conditions, they're in the center line of the road. But when we go to a 50ft right ofway and we split them, they would be at 302.4t
for lot 6.01 and 301 ft for 6.02. So there' be no variances under the actual lot width. So to the visible naked eye, you have a lovely lot width of 300 ft. No one would see that. If we go to a 66 ft rightway, we go down
to 301.2 2 ft and 298.5 ft. So, the one lot was slightly under, but again, it's a foot and a half difference. So, to the naked eye of someone driving by, you don't actually see lot width happening. But because of
the ordinance, that's what we're going to be showing. Going back to numbers again, there's an interior lot with requirement at the front yard setback. Um, and we are under that. It's supposed to
be 300 ft. So, we are at for lot 6.01 at the front yard setback 287.1 ft for lot 6.01 for 6.02 270 and at 66 ft right ofway 285.9 ft for
6.01 267.5 ft for 6.02. So again, we're under ideally I think the ultimate reasoning that these ordinance was made was rectangular lots. As you can see, this is not a rectangular lot. So as we go back in the property, the lot widths,
they're not perpendicular. They're getting smaller as we go. >> And this that's because the lot is more of a trap using am I using the right? >> Yes, it is a trapezoid. That was good. It is a trapezoid. That's very nice. So it just it's an unusual shape. As we continue to go back, the ordinance has
lot width at setback and then 40 ft past the setback. So with that, there's the additional variances that are being listed at for and all being listed as 300 ft as a requirement. So again, if it's a rectangle, it makes sense, but
we're on a trapezoid. So everything gets smaller as we're going back in the property. So 40 ft beyond for the 6.01, 01 we're at 281. For 6.02, we're at 270 257.6. And then with a 66 ft right ofway, we
are at 279.8 for lot 6.01 and 255.1 for 6.02. Those are the listed variances that are being requested which ultimately it's which lot which which
right of way are we going with which at that point that's more of Mr. Tvel's of like where are we going with this ultimately there's variances regardless for lot area and lot width and you're going past the setback and 40 ft beyond
that. Aside from that, everything else that's proposed on both lots all comply. So regardless of lot area, lot width, even setbacks, lot width, and all the other fun stuff the ordinance has to do.
The house that's it was under construction at the time of this initial application, but mainly finished now complies with everything. and the proposed lot and everything that's conceptual in this all complies with all of the bulk requirements.
>> So Kirsten, let's let's go through that because I think it's important and the reason I want to reiterate it too is because I want to put on the proof as if it were 66. >> Could we could we get >> Sorry. >> Thank you. >> Sorry about that. >> So I just I just wanted to go over it as
if it were 66. So we could share the mic. Um, so cuz obviously at 50 everything's going to just be more conforming. >> Yeah, let's go to 60. >> Okay. So at you want to Oh, should we grab the other mic? Is that okay? So we don't have time.
>> Y that's >> Thank you. >> I got it here. >> It's on. >> There we go. I double tap. It's a push. >> Okay. So, the front yard setback of both
homes at at the 66 ft and just remind everybody the front yard setback is the distance from the property line or the new property line to the home. Correct. >> Correct. >> Right. So, what would it be for 6.01 and 6.02 under the new what's required and
what's proposed with the 66 ft rideway dedication? required is 100 feet and what's proposed with the 66 foot for lot 6.01 is 134.2 feet and lot 6.02 is 113.9. >> Okay. So both
um meet that requirement or actually both exceed the requirement. >> Yes. >> Okay. One by almost 33%. >> Yes. >> Okay. And then in terms of the sideyard setback, do those comply as well? >> Yes. The requirement is 50 ft and lot
6.01 is at 59.4 and lot 6.02 is at 50.8. >> Okay. And then the rear yard set back I guess that really >> that's really exacerbated. >> Yeah. So what's so what's the rear yard for both of them? >> Rear yard requirements 100 ft. Lot 6.01
is 127 and lot 6.02 is 266.1 ft. >> Okay. Now building coverage. So you're permitted 10% to have up to 10% of building coverage. Correct? >> Yes. >> So based on the lot area of the entire
property with the 66 ft dedication, what would the lot area be with that taking the the of the entire parcel for the subdivision >> for 6.01? It would be at 4.5% and 6.02 with the conceptual plan would be at
3.7%. >> Okay. But the whole lot itself is 176,366 square feet without before subdivision. Correct? >> Yes. >> So somebody could technically put 17,636
ft of building on this property as of right. Is that correct? >> Yes. >> Okay. In the proposed condition, what is the total square footage or roughly the total square footage? 7,200. >> Okay. So, less than half. >> Yes.
>> So, so somebody could have one 17,000 plus building footprint as of right in the proposed were less than half of that. >> Yes. >> Okay. Impervious coverage based on that again conservatively on the 176,000
square foot number. What is the permitted imperous coverage amount? >> Approximately 44,000 ft. So 25% of the property could be covered with building, driveway, patio, sidewalk, >> pool, cabanas, accessory, structures,
anything you want on the property. >> So So you can go up to 44,000 square ft. >> Yes. >> And what's being proposed? >> About 24,000. >> And how much on each lot? >> 13700 on lot 6.01 and a little over 10,000 on
6.02. I round it up. >> All right. And what are those percentages? >> 15.8. Oh, no, wait. I got to go my other numbers. >> It's okay. >> Yeah, 16.2 and 10.9. >> And that's for uh proposed lot 6.01 and lot 6.02.
>> 6.01 is 16.2 and lot 6.02 is 10.9. >> Okay. And with regard to again from an engineering standpoint, the way that you've laid out the homes, one obviously exists, the other is conceptual. From an engineering perspective, they comply
with RSIS. >> Yes. >> Okay. Um, they'll be able to comply with the town's stormwater management ordinance. >> Yes. >> Okay. They'll have proper driveway widths. I know that's RSIS, but just to be clear. >> No. Yes. 100%. >> Okay. And RSI is for the record would be
the residential site improvement standards. >> Okay. >> You have to file a separate lot grading permit that you have to do and comply with their requirements. >> Okay. Do you see any engineering issues as it relates to the layout a of what's
existing and b what's proposed on 6.02? >> No. >> Okay. Just want to make sure we hit everything. Okay. I believe that's all I have for Mastercorn. I just wanted to make sure we went back through everything and refreshed everybody's memory. So, thank
you. >> Any questions from the board? >> This witness? >> Yes. I wanted to ask um first of all, when you give statistics about what the um conformity
on law 6.02 02 would be for the conceptual house. Have you maximized the size of this conceptual house? I I don't quite understand why you site statistics for a house that doesn't exist. >> The the requirements for a subdivision
application is to show conceptual. I mean that was it's a checklist requirement. We have to show a house and a driveway. uh it is not maximized because it can be larger but it also is up to the board if they want to
restrict as part of this application to make a certain percentage size. We're proposing a 3400 ft house >> footprint the not proposing to build that house. >> They're not. No, it is conceptual in nature which is the requirements of the
subdivision ordinance that we had to do. Yeah. So, let me let me be clear because actually it's a good question and maybe maybe I should have been more I should have mentioned this. So, if the board approves this, they're granting a variance for the undersized lot, right? We would be bound by the numbers on this
bulk table. So, if your question is, and I'm trying to elicit what where you were going with the question, right, is that we're only showing 3.8% or or so, let's just call it 4% buildout on the proposed lot. So if somebody were to build that,
if somebody were to build on that lot should the board approve it, they would have they'd be bound by that 4% on what was here. They wouldn't be allowed to go up to the 10 without coming back to the board for something. So as part of the variance condition, we'd be we'd be we're presenting that percentage. We'd
be bound by that percentage. >> So that would be put into the deed of that of that particular lot. >> That's correct. Because when you do them when the when boards grant minor subdivisions, I believe under section 47 of the MLUL, the board's got to the planning board signs the deed. Um that's
one. Two is typically the the two new legal descriptions are attached and the resolution approving the application is attached showing it. So that would be a condition of the again, should the board choose to do that, that would be a condition in that resolution that would be in the title.
>> Okay. Um and also you've spent quite a bit of time talking about the various conditions that um your application conforms with. But in terms of variances, the lot uh size variance is
very significant. Right? The required lot size is 3 acres, but these lots would be approximately 2 acres, slightly more or slightly less. So about 1/3 less than the required size. Isn't that correct?
>> Yes. >> Yeah. And our planner will go into the obviously the justifications for it, but yes, you're correct. That is the size that we're proposing. >> Okay. I think those are all the questions I have right now. Thank you. >> Sure. >> Mr.
Just kind of piggyback on what Mr. Quillin had said about these concepts of a plan. So, and I'm going to clarify this just so I understand this, right? So, so bear with me. So what is going to be deed restricted this concept of a
plan here for a dwelling which could be up to 10% but you're you're saying now it's 3% right I'm finished it's finished >> right so 3% but the some future applicant can appear before this board or some version of this planning board
in the future to say well I'm not really crazy about you know a box right I'm I want something either a little bigger or a little different and and they're going to they can come before us regardless of what's on the deed, right? They can come
before the planning board and say, "I want variances and relief for such and such." Is that the is that true? >> I think if the um we could research this further, but I think if it's a deed restriction, it has more teeth to it than just being a condition of the
approval, but any anybody could always come back and try to amend something. I mean that's that's that's the case with any piece of property in the state, right? But I think if it's if the board were to make it a deed restriction, then the >> again based if the board felt that that was appropriate to keep the the building
coverage and the lock coverage and all the other items in our in the bulk table, >> right? >> That then that would have more teeth than just a um a condition because again you could always move to amend a condition or seek another var. I mean that that's the case with any property that there is >> which is which is I'm getting the sense
because I'm looking at the the the house that's almost finished that's you know still under final touches here and it looks to be a you know a house of you know quite a striking design >> and then the concept which is you know a
box >> well you always do that with a subdivision >> I get it I get that that's we have to as part of the condition of the application that there has to be a concept of a plan, right? >> I'm just trying to piggy back on what Mr. Quillin was saying that, you know,
somebody can some future applicant can come and and request more variances. >> Correct me if I'm wrong, but it doesn't need to be a box. It just needs to be 3,400 ft. >> It doesn't have to be a box. Okay. >> We're propo it. We're proposing it at 3,400 ft at 3.6%
>> of 3,400 feet. they can come in with an architect and come up with some different footprint as long as it fits within the setbacks and stays within the numbers that we're proposing would not have to come back unless they look to go over these numbers or go over
the setbacks, but they could give obviously the house more definition and it not be a box, but stay within these numbers. >> I appreciate the clarification. Thank you. >> Sure. >> If I could ask a point clarity here. >> Sure. So, if I'm understanding what the the
stipulation condition is here, >> any >> Chris, could you speak in the mic, too? >> If I'm understanding what the condition that's being offered here is, um, both lots, any future development wouldn't uh deviate any further from the
requirements of the ordinance than what's shown on the plans, isn't that? And that applies to setbacks, >> right? >> Lot coverage, pretty much everything in that table. or I just want to understand exactly what's being >> it's not going to >> yes for the numbers on the table but then we realized when we were prepping
for tonight is the building and impervious coverage these numbers were based on a 50ft right ofway so the numbers in my testimony were the conservative side of a 66 ft rightway which were smaller >> right >> so we would if approved we would amend
those numbers >> right >> sticking with everything that's on this plan just the percentages and numbers are a little bit different. They're they're worse in a sense, but I hear >> it's just for the 66 foot right of way as the more conservative side. >> Okay. So, the parameters that laid out
in your testimony. >> Yes. >> Not this the setback isn't going to get >> nothing with the setbacks. No. >> Okay. So, I think they would have the flexibility to build a smaller house. Yes. That's more conforming, but they wouldn't be able to go beyond what's proposed in terms of exacerbating any
condition that would make it closer to non-conforming or non-conforming. >> They can't go to 10% or 25%. >> No, no, but how you said it was exactly correct. >> Yes. >> Gotcha. Okay. So, I understood. Oh, and one other very quick point or quick question on um when you were talking
about the lot width along the frontage. Um 6.01 would be 301.2 and 602 6.02 would be 298.5. >> Yes. >> Okay. All right. Just making sure because I think you just said one lot's going to be this, one lot's going to be that. Just want >> Yes. >> So that would technically require a
variance. It's not listed with a V on the on the table, but it should be. >> Okay. That's one addition. Any other questions from the board? >> I have one. >> Yeah, it's in order. >> I can't get on. Okay. Yes. >> Um my question is
uh regarding this conversation about an approval that would make restrictions based on this projection that you have, which is kind of a guess, right? Because it's not built. Um is that in line those uh those those those restrictions that
are lower than what is permitted generally is that in line with the other we'll call it nonconforming properties that have you know smaller than 2 acres say or do they get the benefit of the
25% 10%. I um I don't I we haven't done I we could I guess if the board felt it was appropriate. I have not we I don't think we've done an analysis of those built of building coverage and lot coverage on those existing properties. We just did
more of a lot size analysis. But yeah, they would not those properties from what I understand don't have those same restrictions that we're proposing. They have the benefit of those >> orders. I mean, my concern is, is that a typical thing? And as a potential future home owner or property owner, uh, it it
just seems it would be less than fair to restrict um, you know, it in in a different way than other similarsized properties if it were to be approved. >> The reason sure about why we would want to do that. >> Yeah. I mean, it's up to the board. my the point that I'm made that we were trying to make is we understand that
we're seeking relief and we're seeking approval to do these undersized lots and part of our um testimony is that look I mean I'm previewing the planning testimony that you're going to hear but that this is a better alternative zoning alternative for several reasons and one
of those reasons being you're not getting as much development on the site in the proposed condition which our planner will go into versus what's permitted as of Mr. Chairman, I have a question. >> Yes, Mr. Ben. >> If we were to approve this,
would we no longer have RA130 zoning for these two lots? Or would it be a different zone R35 or something else that has its own um zone distance requirements and zone
requirements? or does it continue to be the R130 with variances? >> I'll let your attorney answer also, but the map doesn't change. The zone that the properties in does not change. >> Yeah. Practically speaking, I guess if uh the board want to impose that, wanted
to impose the condition offered by council, it would have its own parameters that it could work in. But I mean, technically speaking, it would still be uh what is it? RA130. Yeah. Right. >> It's not like it's changing to a different zone. So, I guess like for example, if there was like a like building height, I guess
isn't really being touched on here, right? They'd still have to stay within that requirement, for example. Um, >> or if any future >> person wanted to do anything, they'd still be restricted by the 130 zone. >> Yeah. >> And they would have an undersized lot
they'd have to go forward with. >> Right. So, so normally if if something an application of this nature went through to an approval and then there was a builder's decision to modify, they're living usually in a
broader box, right? You have your setbacks from the zones and then you have particularly the relief they saw on the variances specifically. They're offering to further constrain the relief points of variance, right,
for the location of the home to be more narrowly banded that it might still fit within the approvable setback for the zone, but because of the other considerations have this specific as shown setback and
nothing less. So, if it was 20 in the zone and they're offering 25, you wouldn't have a builder's revision later that's still compliant with the zoning at 23, right? That I think that's the nature of what they're offering.
>> Okay. >> All right. Thank you. >> I think the idea is because they're proposing council, correct me if I'm wrong, because they're proposing two undersized lots. That's what they're the selling point they're trying to offer to the board is that we'll offer to keep the house at this size. Won't get any
larger essentially. Well, what I was thinking is if that we had a different zone, which I can see we're not going to different do a different zone. We wouldn't need to worry about the setbacks we're proposing here as part of this approval process. It would then be
subject to whatever the zone is if if it changed. But I can see we're not going to be changing that. So, I guess it would be appropriate to to put some zoning requirements, setbacks in here. >> If you were if the township was to
change the zoning applicable to this property in the future, then the the owner at that time would be availed of the benefits of that zone change. >> Right. Right. Right. Exactly. Thank you.
>> Any other questions? Rich, you have any questions? want to be clear. We're not contemplating a zone change as part of this application. >> Correct. Right. >> This board cannot do that. >> I just want to be clear. We're not considering that.
>> Uh Miss Laney, do you have any questions for this witness? >> Mr. Vi, any questions for this witness? >> I do not. >> Okay. Uh Mr. Simon, >> I'm guessing you probably do. >> Guessing correct.
I'll take the other. >> Okay. Just give me a second. >> Is there a particular plan you'd like to have close by? >> No, I don't I don't who knows, but probably not. I'm okay.
>> Okay. No, I appreciate that. Thank you. Um, so again, um, good evening members of the board. Uh, good to be back here. 2026, um, Rob Simon from Herald Law here on behalf of Mark and Jamie Milano, 40 Schoolhouse Lane, block 3601, lot 5,
directly across the street. Most, good evening. Just a couple questions as follow-ups. So you you went through the uh various bulk standards that are not being deviated by
this project, but we still end up with either eight or nine variances that are still going to be requested. Correct. >> Yes. And you still have not despite the colloquy about uh proposed restrictions
and reductions you still have not uh provided or the applicant has still not provided any type of architecturals proposed for lot 6.02 correct to your knowledge miss >> not submitted to the board no
>> when you say not sub I'm saying for lot 6.02 2. You say not submitted to the board. What does that mean? >> We have >> Well, then I'm asking you questions. >> We haven't submitted. >> We haven't submitted. We have conceptuals. We haven't submitted.
>> When you say you have conceptuals, you have conceptuals um for lot 6.02 based on some of the uh dimensions that you're showing in the zoning table. No, they vary.
>> They vary in what sense? >> The house looks a little bit different. >> Okay. >> But again, conceptual. >> Okay. So, building coverage, lot coverage, things of that nature may be different than
what you're showing on the bulk table that is sub most recently submitted to the board. Is that fair? >> Yes. Yeah. Um, and and those plans include that you're referring to that you've not yet shown the board include both floor plans and elevations. Is that correct? >> I object. I don't want her to she can't
testify on plans that haven't been submitted to the board. >> Right. >> And nor do I think architectural nor do I think architectural elevations are necessary for a subdivision. We agreed that the application, if approved, would have to comply with the requirements set forth on the plans.
Well, >> end of story. Well, the reason why I don't think it's end of story, I'm not trying to be argumentative, is that we were just talking about resolution conditions, how big, because of the size of the uh lot. And so, I do
respectfully contend not only based on case law that I've cited to this board in past hearings, but also the fact that I believe that the applicant opened the door on the issue. But I will move on. Um, So, and um Miss Astraorn, you're
familiar with the uh Mars Township zoning ordinance, correct? >> Yes. >> Okay. And you're also familiar with the fact that the ordinance does not permit accessory structures in a front yard, correct? >> Yes. >> Or in front of the building for that matter, right? >> Yeah.
>> Principal building. >> Yeah. Okay. And you talked about um conditions uh that would be set forth in a resolution. To your knowledge as the engineer on the project, if a builder, future developer
wanted to modify those agreed to conditions by the applicant, they would come back to the board for a modification of condition. >> Correct. >> Okay. But they wouldn't be coming back for a variance because the lot was
already created. That's that's um what's the word that I wanted to use right now? >> Um sorry. Uh I that's >> Rob and I have worked together many times. We have a good time with this. Um it's that that's all speculative and and
conjecture, right? Because if if somebody want we don't know what what anybody in the future would ever come back with, so we don't know the answer to that. But if the if the something modifi if something was to modify a condition, that's one thing. If something were to modify a condition that then triggered a variance, that's
something else. So that could happen on any property in any municipality anywhere. But we would be bound just like every application is that's approved, bound to what the board um puts in its resolution. Um
>> you uh you did an analysis of um when you were looking at the tax maps of lots in the general area and you were uh pointing to the lot areas. Correct. >> Some of them. Yes. >> Some of them. Um you haven't done any
type of analysis beyond lot area to determine lot coverage, building coverage, F and the like. Correct. >> No, I have not. Okay, nothing further. Thank you. >> Are there any questions from the public of this witness? And I remind you, these are questions on
the testimony I just presented. you'll have a chance for comment later, but so these would be questions directed uh to um this witness on her testimony. >> That's your hint that everything you say should have a question mark at the end of it. >> I don't need to s because you're not
going to question. >> Yes. No question. >> I have a I have a couple um those uh >> name and address first. >> Richard Smith, >> 44 schoolhouse. >> Okay. Um those lots that you referred to,
do you know when those deeds were when those lots were created? The the lots that are not conforming to the R130. >> I I don't have off the top of my head. I mean, I have the deed book reference, but I don't actually have the deeds.
>> Okay. Right. So, would it surprise you that they were >> very old? >> Very old. >> Yes. No, that wouldn't surprise me. Yes. >> Potentially before there was any zoning ordinance. Correct. >> Okay. Another one. Um, from last time we I
don't know if I asked you this, but you know what a road return is? >> Yes. >> Okay. And um, do you know what a road return does? >> Sorry. >> Do you know what a road return does? >> Road return.
>> Yes. Road return. I'm sorry. I'm familiar with the road return maps in surveying history, but to be specific to your question, I can't answer what it does. >> Sorry, you're saying road return. >> Two words, road and return. A return is
a when a um the surveyors bring a paper back to the state, the county, >> no testifying. Yeah. Okay. >> All right. So, um, if you don't know what it does or what it is, >> I guess I can't ask more questions about
it. >> Okay. >> Thank you, >> Mr. Simon. So, for the the proposed septic on lot 6.02,
was that um has that been designed yet beyond what's on the plan? >> No. >> Okay. And um did you identify um where wells are in the surrounding area to determine that the septic area is within or at least 150 ft away from
the nearest well? You haven't done that analysis. Not for the conceptual lot. No. >> Okay. Thank you. >> You're welcome. Any other questions from the public? >> No. Okay. Hearing none. I guess we could
>> I'm sorry if they asked for this. Can we just take like a two-minute like restroom break? Is that okay? >> Yes, >> that's okay. Thanks. >> Yeah, we'll be uh Okay, we'll be back here. We'll start again at 8:00. >> 4 minutes. >> Okay.
>> Did you give him the thumb drive? >> No. >> To Ryan. He's going to put up an exhibit. So, you want me to give you a thumb drive? You could put it on me. >> Sure. >> Okay. >> Yes, that would be >> I wasn't going to steal any. >> I wish I did.
>> I know the door is locked. >> I know. >> Yeah. >> He knows I don't like the me. I I was thinking of it earlier. I'm like I didn't bring You should bring some. I I figured it out. >> If I had my other brief, I would have >> Okay. Well, what do you want to
introduce? >> Yeah. Let me grab >> Oh. Oh, yes. Yeah. Good. Yes. Good idea. Good evening. >> Good evening. >> Swear him in. >> Yeah. All right, Mr. Flynn. I will swear you, sir. You swear or the testimony you
provide me the truth. The whole truth about the truth. >> I do. >> Thank you. >> I'm sorry. I can catch your name. >> Matt Flynn. F L Y N. >> Matt. >> All right. Matt, can you give the board the benefit of your qualifications, educational background, licenses held, whether they're in good standing, and
also your experience testifying as an expert planner in the state of New Jersey? >> Sure. Education comes from Ruckers. I have my master's degree in planning and public policy. I have my professional planners license in the state of New Jersey. I I also have my AICP certification, which is the national
lensure for planners. I think this is my first time to have the pleasure to be before this board. However, I have testified across over a hundred other zoning and planning boards across the state. >> And your license is in good standing. >> Yes. >> Yes. I will accept the qualifications.
Please. >> Thank you. Okay. All right. Matt, as part of the um part of the application, you reviewed all the plans um application materials. You've heard the testimony and either and read the transcripts from the prior hearings. >> That's right.
>> Okay. So why don't we just start from a zoning perspective just describing the property and the surrounding area. Obviously don't duplicate what Miss Asterorn did, but if you could just start with that. >> Sure. So the board is well aware at this point that we are proposing a two lot
subdivision. Really what's driving this application. >> Is this still >> Sorry. Uh really what we wanted to do with this application is provide something that's consistent with what we see in the immediate area. Um so we wanted to ensure that the lot width at
schoolhouse lane was actually compliant despite the lot area um variances even though now with the 66 ft uh dedication one of those lot widths is actually going to be 1.5 ft um deficit of that requirement. So dimminimous, but again
at the heart of the application from the beginning was to provide those compliant lot widths so that while you're walking past or driving past, you don't see an exceptionally uh narrow property. We also wanted to ensure based on these uh conceptual uh drawings that you see that
we could provide a reasonably sized house um without necessitating any bulk relief for setbacks, coverage, height, things of that nature. Um, so again, it is conceptual as the board has has already discussed, but the point really is just to show that it is possible
despite the non-conforming lot area to get a reasonably sized home on the property that's proposed. Um, and of course, and this is pretty much where the planning testimony comes in, is that we wanted to propose something that's consistent with the surrounding properties. Um, again, not something
that's exceptionally narrow. uh really we didn't want to propose something that stands out in any way um in in the grand scheme of the neighborhood there. So before I turn to the statutory criteria and walk the board through the justifications for the variances that we're seeking, I do want to just remind
the board that each application does stand on its own merits. Just because something's a variance doesn't necessarily mean that it's inappropriate. It just means that the board is being asked to to weigh in on the application to ensure that it is appropriate um and will not create an
adverse impact to the neighborhood or to the zone. Uh really in in some we feel that what we're proposing this evening is actually going to complement the neighborhood. It's going to fit in and it's not going to stand out. Um, so with
that, I'll just go real quick through um the fact that we are looking at an approximately 4.5 acre property in the RA130 zone, proposing a two lot subdivision. We already heard that we're proposing one property that's 1.947
acres and the other one at 2.101 acres, whereas the minimum lot area requirement is 3 acres. Um, so both properties require lot area variances for being under those three acres. Lot area per family. Um, again, it's
pretty much a function of that non-conforming lot area. Each family needs three acres. So, of course, it's pretty much the same requirement. Um, lot width at the setback and then lot width at 40 ft beyond the setback. Um, but again, we do pretty much comply at
the street line itself. So, from the planning end, I look at the site itself. I look at the surrounding context and I try to tie all of that relief into the statutory criteria. Um, in this case, the the C variances that we're seeking this evening.
Um, so I think at this point, uh, I would ask if I could put my exhibit up >> right now. >> Okay. >> All right. So, I think council, we're up to a, uh, nine. >> A10. Sorry. A10. Sorry. >> And I do have handouts. Did I give you
those? Where? If we want to use these as well, we can. I don't know. >> What do you think? >> Yeah. Hold on. >> In the meantime, I guess I'll just ask what what exhibit number we're at at this point. >> A10.
>> Okay. So, for the record, exhibit A10, entitled Planning Exhibits for Mark and Lynn Piccolo, is a sixpage exhibit consisting of some drone photographs taken by my office. um earlier today, May 4th, 2026.
Uh one of which are actually uh two of which are marked up and I'll walk the board through that. >> Yeah. Uh Kirsten, just make sure you give Mr. S one. >> Just grab it.
All right. Thanks. >> All right. So, >> just I don't know if you said this A10 consists of how many pages? >> Six pages. Okay. >> This is very >> So, I'll walk the board through this now. Um, page one of exhibit A10 shows
the subject property highlighted in this yellow outline, uh, with the proposed subdivision line, um, being shown in that dashed line right through the middle pretty much, I guess. Is that large enough for
everybody to see or do we need to zoom? >> Okay. Um, so basically, yeah, we have proposed lot 6.01 01 on the left side of the image and then proposed lot 6.02 on the right side of the image. I noted the lot
acreage that we're proposing. Um I also have marked up on this page to the immediate left and to the immediate right of this property if you're facing the the property from the street there. Um we're actually pretty much flanked on two sides by two non-conforming
properties on each side. Um, so to the left there's actually a flag lot associated with uh lot five of this block that has a 60.5 lot width. That's actually not marked
up. But immediately to the left of that we have lot four which is undersized in terms of lot area and also under the required lot width. So lot four is 1.97 acres. Again, the minimum is 3 acres for
that property as well. Same zone and the lot width is 125 ft. Whereas, again, the they have the same requirement as us for lot width at 300. Immediately to the left of that, we see lot three, which I have here 1.8 acres. This is all based
on the tax map and verified through um a service that I have access to. 1.8 acres, again, 125 ft of lot width. So, those are pretty much the two or three properties immediately to the left. If we look immediately to the right now, uh
the first property that we have right next door is lot 8. Again, undersized in terms of lot area as well as lot width. Here we're looking at a property that is 1.41 acres and 126.76
ft. So, again, substantially undersized in in terms of those two metrics. Immediately to the right of that, we have a slightly larger property than what I was just showing you at 2.6 acres. Again, the minimum is 3 acres. Um, that property is lot 9. And they
have a again a 126.76 ft lot width. And I'll I'll talk a little bit more about that, but I just want to walk the board through the rest of this exhibit here. So, ex uh sheet two now. Um, pretty much just zooming in on the
subject property. uh we have already seen the the existing home. That home is compliant in terms of setbacks and now we get a nice view of that uh exi the uh remainder of that property on the right of the image there
where we can again have a a modest sized home that is not going to be egregious in terms of uh uh lot coverage setbacks or or the like. can fit nicely on there. Um, despite the the non-conforming lot
area. Sheet three just shows the board the existing home. It's a very attractive house. Um, we're not changing that at all by virtue of this application. Sheet four. Just spinning the board
around now. Showing another view. This is pretty much the back of that existing home. And I can go back to any of these as the board wants me to. So sheet five, it shows the driveway heading into that property. And finally,
sheet six shows proposed lot 6.02. I would say that at about 300 ft of width in terms of this uh proposed lot 6.02, it does stand out somewhat in the context of the neighborhood. Um, again, many of these houses that I just showed
the board or many of the properties are much narrower, smaller. So, having this 300 ft uh gap between properties there um is somewhat atypical. So, as I said, I I think I'll walk the board through the the statutory test for
the C variances that we're seeking. I think we can look to the C2 balancing test whereby the benefits of the application substantially outweigh any detriments. Here we're talking about the benefits of the application as a whole. The pulling case tells us that we need not look to the benefits uh that are
being promoted for each individual variance. Rather, we look at the application as a whole um and what benefits spring forth from that. Um so purpose A of the municipal land use law is promotion of the general welfare. here. We're obviously providing new
housing stock for people that might be looking to live in the township. I would say that one of the core goals of zoning is to ensure compatibility between properties uh to ensure that one property doesn't cast a burden on another adjacent property. And here
that's why I sort of wanted to walk the board through these um compatible properties immediately adjacent to us. Another benefit of a somewhat smaller lot, um, not just for this applicant, but for any any uh, homeowner that might be looking for a a home in the township,
a smaller property is easier to maintain. It was something that the applicant put on the record um, at the original applica at the original hearing. Um, purpose G is variety of uses in appropriate locations. I talked a little bit about neighborhood
compatibility. Again, going through the adjacent uh, properties. I will also note that right across the street, uh, block 361, lot 5.01, is even smaller than any of these that we see here at, uh, 0.87 acres. I think
that's actually the gentleman's property at 44 school um, schoolhouse. And also non-conforming in terms of lot width at 212 ft. Um, so here, no matter which way we look, immediately to the right, immediately to the left, immediately across the street, we see
these similar conditions. Um, and basically the point that I'm trying to make is not that these people can do it, why can't we? But again, the point is that from a planning perspective, we want to ensure compatibility. We want to make sure that we're not disrupting an established pattern. Here we have a nice
variety of property shapes, sizes, and we're not going to be disrupting some established uh pattern where every property is uh 3 acres, 300 ft of lot width. So, I went through uh purpose A and purpose G of the MLUL. Uh purpose I
deals with aesthetics. I think I can uh fall back on the neighborhood compatibility uh component that I have been talking about. Um here again we can we can provide a home that is uh modestly sized that doesn't require uh
setback or coverage variances. I'll touch on it in a moment I think further but it's also a better zoning alternative. I think council sort of hinted at this. When we have an oversized property we could get a much larger home than what we are showing the board this evening. By cutting that up
in half, um you're pretty much uh guaranteeing that you're going to have a much smaller home on this property that will be more consistent with the home sizes that we see um abound. So, do you think two houses, one which
is I think about 3,800 square ft in footprint. So, if it's two two stories, it's you know a fairly large house. and one that's 3400 square ft² again two stories is more compatible with the area than one house that could be
approximately 17,000 square ft in area. >> Yeah. And I think I'll I'll hit more on this on the negative criteria uh how this doesn't constitute a detriment. But uh in terms of building coverage, we're at 41% of what's allowed. I don't want to confuse the board with another
percentage. I'm not talking about 41% of the allowable coverage, but what I mean by that is we're proposing about 7,200 square ft of building coverage, whereas we would be allowed to go up to 17,000 square ft. So, we are about 41% with the
U plan that we have this evening. Um, similarly, in terms of imperous coverage, we're proposing 23,700 square ft approximately. We could go up to on a property of this size up to 44,000 square feet. So in that case too,
we're about 54% of the allowable impervious. So again, to council's point, we're proposing something that is from a development intensity standpoint, from a massing standpoint, something that is much um more modest than what we could get on a property of this size.
And does the additional green space on the property and less impervious surface play into any of your analysis on the positive criteria? >> I would say so. Yes. Based on based on those numbers that I just gave the board, I think that plays into uh
purpose I desirable aesthetics, purpose M, efficient land use. These are all the purposes of zoning. These are the reasons that we have zoning in the first place. Um and I think that we do promote those those goals as well. I do want to hit on the what's known as the Kaufman
case. It's a 1988 uh court case in New Jersey um which involved similarly a two lot subdivision that created just like this property uh deficient lot widths and undersized lots really that it's a seminal case that is really the go-to
case for uh C2 variances. Um here the court concluded that the C2 test, the balancing test, benefits outweigh the negatives is met because better consistency with the neighborhood does constitute a benefit. Um in that case,
even though we did again have not we but that applicant had uh undersized area and width, the court found that uh the the the benefit test was met because it did provide something that was consistent with the neighborhood. So
again, just like my analysis considered consistency with some of these surrounding properties that was found as a basis for approval in similar cases. So I think that that really speaks to the positive criteria, the benefits of the application. Um the flip side to
that is the negatives. So I believe there's no substantial detriment to the public or to the zone. In order for a board to deny a variance, they need to find that there is a a adverse impact to the to the neighborhood or to the zone plan. Um, in this case, we have
demonstrated again uh that conformance with bulk requirements could be achieved here without sacrificing uh at typical uh living standards in terms of home sizes and again in terms of setbacks. So, we're not we don't need to bring any
uh any buildings any closer to any property lines despite the fact that we do have based on zoning narrow property narrow properties. And then of course in in terms of coverage uh like we were just talking about we're vastly below what would be
permitted. Still on the negatives here uh less impactful than one very large home. So, I do believe that this constitutes a better zoning alternative. If this were a property that was right in the middle of other 3 acre properties that might
have very large homes on them, I think my analysis would be entirely different. But I think in this case, uh, this application was really driven by the fact that that's not the case here. We have these smaller properties uh, right next door and and right across the street.
Um, I touched on the fact that this is a a neighborhood that is characterized by, I would say, pretty extreme variation in terms of lot sizes and shapes. So, I've said uh that we're not going to be disrupting an established pattern. Again, basically the same thing that I
was just saying. If this were a neighborhood that was pretty consistent in terms of these conforming lots, um, this may be out of context. But again, this is not the case in this neighborhood. When I talk about the negative criteria,
I always go to the master plan. So the zoning ordinance gives us these hard fast numbers. Uh this is what is permitted here. This is what's required. Um the master plan is basically the go as the board knows. Um the master plan is the guiding document in terms of why we have these requirements in the first
place. What are the goals that we're trying to achieve in the town? Um, so in terms of the 2017 master plan, which was the most recent master plan I was able to find, uh, page nine says, quote, uh, due to the limited supply of vacant
land, new residential development would be commensurately limited in scale and incremental in nature. End quote. So, I would say that this sort of infill type development is recognized as something. It's sort of a a direction that the town has has recognized that that development
is going to start taking that um that that type of trend in the future. And again, it does give the board the the benefit of of looking at these types of applications and seeing if it is appropriate given the given the surrounding uh context. Page 15 of the
master plan says quote um to ensure that new infill development in these neighborhoods considers and respects the context in parenthesis established scale and character um of surrounding homes end
quote. So again that's that's the analysis that I was trying to walk the board through. Page 20 says, quote, uh, at the time of the 2007 master plan re-examination, there were a number of applications involving demolition of existing
residential structures and replacement with much larger dwellings, some of which were out of scale with the surrounding neighborhood character. End quote. So to the extent that the town did find that that might be a an issue on large properties like this um that
might be much larger than the adjacent properties as is the case here um that might u that might result in a home that is substantially larger and out of context. So that's that's right there in the master plan as well.
So all said I think the the C2 test is met here. Again, the seminal case is that Kaufman case from 1988, which deals with a very similar application where the the Supreme Court did find that um that this type of analysis that I walked
the board through in terms of the surrounding properties um in terms of neighborhood compatibility and consistency is a basis for approval. So, I think the the case law uh is strong for this application. I think it's a sightspecific
application. We know that zoning is not precedent setting. Um the board always has the right to to weigh each application on its own merits to weigh the surrounding context and to determine whether the application in question is appropriate. Um and so I think I can
rest uh with that unless council has anything else. >> Yeah. So let's just just cover a couple things or just emphasize a couple things that you went over. So we only need to demonstrate that one purpose of zoning is met or of of the municipal land use
law. You've identified, I believe, at least four purposes that are met. Correct. >> That's right. >> And just can you just reiterate what those were again? >> Yeah. Purpose A of the municipal land use law is promotion of the general welfare. Purpose G is variety of uses in appropriate locations. So that's the one
that we look at the surrounding context. Purpose I is desirable aesthetics and purpose M is efficient land use. >> Okay. And that goes again to the fact that the application as proposed meets as we discussed many times the setbacks
and is well under on the on the coverages as well. >> That's right. >> And also does the fact that the as of right development would be more intensive and more imposing in your opinion than what's being proposed? >> Absolutely. And just to remind the board
of those numbers that I gave them a couple minutes ago, uh, building coverage is about 41% of what's allowed. Impervious is about 54% of what's allowed based on the plans we're we're shown. >> So there could be a lot more building and pavement than what's being proposed.
>> That's correct. About almost double. >> Okay. And then in terms of the the negative uh criteria, do you see any detriments to the surrounding properties? a substantial, excuse me, substantial detriment to the surrounding properties as it relates to any land use
category that could potentially impact them, lighting, landscaping, storm water. Do you see anything that would impact the site? >> I do not. And I think uh I forget which board member it was that was talking about reszoning. Um the reason well not
the reason but one of the nice things about this application is that even though we are still looking at this zone the RA130 zone that is built around 3acre properties and we have two properties that are smaller than that we're still able to meet the
requirements typically and if we look in uh Morris Morris Township's um zoning ordinance when we get into those smaller lot zones you're actually looking at less setbacks they get they get lesser the smaller the properties are required
to be. But in this case, we are holding this plan to the to the large lot zoning requirements. >> Okay. And then going back to the Calfman case and your your analysis there. We'll just make sure we have the site. Um I'll I'll make sure to get that for the
records just so it's there. But in that and I can put that in my summation later whenever we get to that. But in in that case, the board found or the court found, excuse me, that um purpose G appropriate population densities were
met in a very similar situation to this. Correct. >> That's right. >> Okay. Can you just again, do you believe that the same or similar circumstances exist here that the court found was approvable in the Catholic case? >> Yeah. Neighborhood compatibility,
consistency with other uh dimensional uh characteristics. I would say it's very similar. >> Okay. So, in your professional opinion, there's no substant You also said there's no substantial impairment to the zone plan or master plan. Correct. >> That's right. >> All right. And can you just again
reiterate some of the other properties in the area and what those numbers were in terms of the surrounding neighborhood as it relates to size and maybe other dimensions. Yeah, I would just ask that we go back to page one on the screen while I do
this, but um again, just to reiterate, immediately to the left, if we're looking at the property from schoolhouse lane, um immediately to the left, we have a flag lot, which is lot five. That uh flag pole, if you will, is 60 ft in
lot width, albeit that is a conforming lot area. Um but again what you see from the street is that that flag pole but immediately to the left of that so just 60 feet away from our property you have lot four which is 1.97 acres
uh where and and 125 ft of lot width at the street. Right beyond that we keep going a little further to the left you have lot three which is 1.8 8 acres and again 125 ft of lot width. Going to the other side
immediately adjacent to us we have lot 8 at 1.4 acres and 126.76 ft of lot width. Immediately to next to that you have lot 9 which is 2.6 acres and again 126.76
ft in lot width. And right across the street, you have block 361, lot 5.01 at 0.87 acres and 212.06 ft of width. There's a couple other
examples if we were to go a little further up and down schoolhouse lane, but I felt that those were the most relevant since they are pretty much adjacent to our property. >> Okay. And your testimony that you gave uh was based on the prior testimony that
was given by Miss Ostra. Correct. You based your testimony on her on her uh on her direct. Correct. >> That's right. >> Okay. As it relates to the um the requirement relating to minimum interior lot width at setback, do you agree with
her that the irregular shape of the property plays into that relief that that being sought there? >> Absolutely. I think if we even if we look at my sheet one, I think that's on the screen there. It was characterized as a trapezoidal shape. I don't get to
say that often, but yeah, the the side lot lines are basically caving in into the center of the property creating that condition. So again, we do have con pretty much conforming lot width at the street with
the exception of the 1.5 ft deviation and that slowly tapers in because of that condition. >> So if it was shaped like a normal lot, whether that be a square or rectangle, that condition wouldn't be as prevalent as it is with the trapezoid.
>> That's right. Okay. So then in in terms of the the the variance relief sought all your testimony applies to the as Mr. Simon indicated the number of variances that we need as to lot size the I just want to make sure that it's correct m
minimum interior lot width correct >> yes and the slight deviation of the one lot in terms of lot width at I guess it was short by 1.5 ft >> that's right >> okay what I also want you to speak to um and I'm assuming it was it was inherent
to your testimony but does the if this is judged as cons in the conservative manner that we're seek which we're stating which is at the 66 ft right ofway and that the property was reduced. All your testimony was based on on those more conservative numbers. >> That's right.
>> Okay. So now you believe we met the positive criteria? >> I do. >> You believe we've met the negative criteria? >> I do. >> So then we have to you have to get to the conclusion as a planner that the benefits of the variances substantially outweigh any detriments. is correct.
That has to be your final conclusion. >> That's right. >> Okay. So, let's just take those two categories. So, the benefits, those are all the purposes of the MLUL that you believe this application promotes. >> That's right.
>> And just to reiterate, promoting the general welfare. >> Yes. >> Com compatibility with the surrounding properties and lot sizes. >> Yes. A better zoning alternative as it relates to the design of the site versus
what could be built. >> Yes. >> More green space on the property. >> Yes. >> More separation of the homes from the adjoining lot lines than what's required. >> Yes. >> Less building coverage and less lot
coverage than what's permitted. >> Yes. >> Okay. So those are the benefits that you see. >> That's right. >> All right. So they have to substantially outweigh any detriments. Right. >> Right. >> So do you find there to be any substantial detriments or any detriments
as a result from the application? >> I do not. >> Okay. So then we have to get to the final step is so you believe that the benefits that you've just discussed substantially outweigh any detriments. >> That's right. >> As it relates to all the variances sought?
>> Yes. and taking it in the most conservative light with the 66T right ofway versus the 50. >> Correct. >> Okay. Thank you very much. So, I just wanted to make sure we covered everything. So, thank you everybody. >> Yes, sir.
>> Just a quick question and thank you for that testimony. It was very enlightening. Um you mentioned this Calfman case from 1988 and it was similar in some respects. Can you um just give us a little idea of what that
Calfman case was about? And here we're looking at a 4 acre basically a 4acre lot being subdivided into two twoacre lots give or take. What was the Calfman case? Um, was it something that was similar in in in zoning or is it
something that was um substantially m materially different? I've actually never gotten that question before and it's been a while since I've read through this case. Uh, so I'm going to see if I can get that for you.
>> Alexis, hold up. If you have a citation, I can try. Oh, it's uh it's uh 110. >> I'm looking at it, too. >> 110.
>> No, it's NJ. It's Supreme Court 551. >> You found it. Yeah, >> you got it. Oh, okay. Good. In this case, the property um in the Kaufman case, the property was in the R20 zone, which
requires a minimum lot area of 20,000 square ft and a minimum lot width of 100 ft. >> So, it was smaller. >> It was much smaller. Yeah. One question on terms of u stitting this in the most conservative
with the 66 ft right away. Does that apply to the lot size of the adjoining lots? Is that figured on a 66t rightway or a 50ft rightway? If the tax map has been changed, that whole section is now 66 ft.
>> Yeah. But I don't think the tax map has changed the lot acreages. They just changed the the uh designation on the on the road. Right. >> Yeah. I I don't know what the effect of making that map change was by the
municipality. >> I'm just assuming that if the township were to ever go to take that property to widen the street that now they would be taking an additional 8 ft on each side of the road. But um yeah, I don't think that those properties
>> but you recalculated the lot size of of uh these two lots based on a 66. Yeah. So I now >> and just took the whatever the listed values. >> Right. Now I understand your question Matt. You didn't subtract >> you didn't make those lots smaller or
maybe you did. I just that's a good question. Did did you take into account that those lots may decrease in size even further based on the right of the map changing? I did not. Um, but just as a I guess uh if it helps at all, if you
look at Miss Austorn's uh zone table, you could kind of see what impact it had on our on our properties, >> like less than.1 acres >> of change. So, I I don't want to use the word negligible. I don't want to
discount your your point, but >> but they would all decrease in size slightly, >> right? Yeah, thank you. So just sorry just to be clear there speak the microphone the the lot acreage value shown on sheet one of your exhibit
that's based on those lots having a 50ft rightway therefore a 25ft dedication >> if that's what the tax map is based on then I would say yes >> okay >> go back >> go to oh >> my6 But
those areas are yours. >> What you're showing is 1.4. >> No, but they're talking about these guys. >> Oh, I don't know. Yeah, exactly. >> Right. You just went with the values that are on the tax. >> Yeah, we just went with We didn't Yeah. If if the tax map deducted because of 50
ft >> and that's where we went or if they didn't deduct at all, we just went with what was on the tax. >> Any other questions? >> Yeah, I have some questions. >> Mr. Uh, so I wanted to ask questions about the um lot sizes in the neighborhood.
Um, you mentioned the flag lot that's right next to the um to the applicant lot um just on the left of um the picture on page one. Um
you referring to page one of his exhibit >> page one of >> his exhibit. Okay. Just want to make sure. So, um there's a flag lot. The the um frontage on the street is 100 and something feet. I believe you said
>> about six about 60 if I'm not mistaken. >> 60 ft. Um and you said that the lot is conforming. What is the area of that lot? >> Yeah. >> Oh, it is. Is that 7
>> over 7 acres? >> About 7.3 acres. >> Okay. Um so I'm just concerned that you've you've picked um a region here which exactly um fits your story. So um
you didn't show the acreage of that lot. And then if if you go to the other side of u of the homeowner's lot um beyond lot nine. Uh so block 3501 lot 8 and then 351
lot 9. If you go to the right of that you get another lot that I believe is conforming. Is that right? Uh >> that's about 5 acres. >> That's correct. >> And then you get another lot that's about 11 acres. 14 acres.
>> That's correct. And and then I'm not sure uh what happens if you were to go up the hill um beyond the flag lot beyond lot three. What happens there? >> Well, if you were >> if you were to go a couple lots that
way, you would actually be in the adjacent town. Um not that it not that it's irrelevant, but >> you get one more conforming lot and then you're in Mandum. I think something like that. >> I think you might be that might be correct. >> And then
Directly across the street you have conforming lots, right? So that's part of the neighborhood as well. So the house that's directly across the street from the driveway of the applicant's house, uh, is that number 40? Uh, house
number. >> That's correct. Yes. >> So that's a conforming lot. >> That is conforming. That's correct. And those lots up the hill from that is a conforming lot.
>> Can you just say which which lot you're referring to? Three 5.02. >> So we're all on the same page. >> I don't. >> No, it doesn't. Well, >> so address number 40. Is that Would it help if I if I brought up the tax map?
>> Yes. The first one that had both sides. >> Yeah, that might help. Yeah. We're looking at the one that the handout was side to side. >> Can I just make a point, Mr. >> Mr. Quillin, some of those lots that you pointed out are not in the same zone.
>> They're they're actually they're not in the RE130. They're in the OSGU. >> Oh, I'm sorry. >> Some of them that that you have to keep that in mind as well. >> Everything on the other side of the street. >> No, no, but some on this on the same side of the street that the zone ends.
Block 10, I think, is where the OSGU is >> on this on this map. Block 10. >> Block 10. So that's >> what I've brought on the screen. Small lot. >> Okay. LSG. >> Yeah. >> Okay. What I've brought on the screen is
tax map 35, which is our current 2025 tax map set and revisions most current 130 2026 by Chris Melik.
>> Prior prior revisions of 2010 and 2014 by Mr. Richard F. Smith Jr. >> Feel like we need to mark this as an exam. Well, isn't this what they distributed? >> We have it. >> They distributed to us. Yeah. Yeah. We uh we >> had this 89.
>> Yeah, we provided that. Y >> the same. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. A9. But it doesn't have the the the zones on. >> I can I can try to talk the board through where those zone lines are
>> if I if I uh >> whatever. That would be helpful for me. >> On page one of the uh THAT'S the board want me to talk about those where those zone lines are where the
OSGU zone starts. >> Yes. >> Okay. The other side >> I think I think this is actually okay. So lot six is our property. This
trapezoidal property I talked about these two properties I guess to the east of us. Lot eight and lot nine which I talked about are unders sized and under width if you will. Immediately beyond that is actually the
diff a different zone. That's the OSGU zone. >> So lot 10 is OSGU. >> Yes. >> Yes. as is laden le. >> That's correct. >> Um, and if we I just want to just address one of your other points if I may. If we go the other way,
>> west. >> Yeah, west. >> So, if we go west, we can see the flag lot. That, like I said, is conforming in terms of lot area. And I'm sorry I didn't provide you the exact
number, 7.3 acres. Um, I do think it is important to note that from the street, you're really not getting the full view of that property. So, when we talk about impacts to the streetscape, it's not necessarily having as much of a an
influence as as these other properties. Um, what you do see is the 60 ft of separation. Uh, so anyway, right beyond that, you have those two. Just just to be clear, it's conforming a lot of area, but it's not conforming in other ways. Correct. >> That's correct.
>> Okay. So, it doesn't conform with the lot width. >> That's right. >> Yeah. And so, just to complete >> my thought here. So, then you have lot two, which is like you mentioned a
conforming sized property. And I believe right after that, this is a conservation easement. So I'm kind of discounting that even though that's technically an undersized property, but then you're in Mendum. >> Yeah. So that lot one on the tax map is
a split lot between Morris and Mendum. >> Okay. There's a track there that was is split >> and >> that that conservation easement I believe is part of a prior approval on that lot. And I guess just the last thing I'll
say, uh, I don't want necessarily want to jump to a whole other tax sheet, but I all I'll say is that there's an extreme level of variation. And so whereas you might see you do see
some properties that are conforming in terms of lot area. Um not only are we sort of in this little pocket here where you you have the OSGU zone right there and then another town right there with their own zoning. So this does constitute somewhat of a pocket. Um even
those properties that do conform in terms of either lot area or lot width, they're non-conforming in other ways in many instances in terms of depth. Um, as the board knows, we measure width at various points and we here we have properties that are all different sorts
of sizes. Um, so I think the the analysis if we really wanted to assess every single property in terms of all of those metrics, it would just be a numbers game at that point. It wouldn't necessarily be, you know, what do you see on the ground and how is this going to impact what you
actually see. So >> you did mention the other side of the street too because see the the next sheet that shows the other side of the street. >> Yes. You would consider that part of the neighborhood that you think about too, right? >> Can you comment on how it lines up with >> Let me get my That's the problem.
>> This is map 36, >> right? >> The other side of the street. I don't know if it was entered. >> That wasn't >> That was not >> Oh, it was not. It was in her. It was shown both sides of the street were shown in the initial
>> exhibit, right? I believe >> I thought it was one of two. >> No, no, but hold on. Just ju just just just to be clear, that individual tax map that you just put up was not entered as
an exhibit. Just just to be very specific. However, Miss Auststerorn when she showed a tax map exhibit, she did show our side of the street and the other side of the street in that exhibit. But just to be very detailed,
that specific sheet was not >> provided. That's the source material for that. >> Go ahead, Rob. I'm sorry. >> Let's just I'm sorry I'm interrupting. That's okay. Let's be clear for the record. So, let's go back. So A8 is a
tax map as exhibited November 18th, 2025 showing 50 foot right away, right? That was just what she number was that >> 118 2025. That was sheep one of two, >> right? >> Two of two. >> So sheep 35 and 36.
>> Yeah. >> Right. >> Yeah. >> So that's that's two a two pager. There's a >> two8 is two pages two. >> Yeah. >> And then A9 which is the January 30th, 2026
tax map exhibit showing the 66 ft right ofway. Is that again both sheets 35? >> Two that was a two pager. >> That was also sheets 35 and 36. >> Yes. I try to help you. >> That's all right. So the point being is
that I believe that what was just up on the board, what's up on the board, >> could you 35 35 and 36? >> Yeah. So what's on the board right there? 36 is part of a plan. >> Yes, I believe. Right. A9 is both
>> 35 and 36 of the current 2025 tax map set. >> Okay. >> With revisions January 30th, 2026. Okay. >> Is this the 2026 one? >> Yeah. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Two showings, right?
>> No. Is this A9? Is this the the handout? That was a two page. >> That was a two page. >> That wasn't marked up at all. That was just a handout showing the right of way change. >> Can you zoom in? Does it say 66? But right, it does.
>> Right. >> So that's the A9. tax and that 88 is the 2014 is the 2023 that >> why don't we just mark the two things that Joe show separate exhibits
>> I'd like to have an answer to that >> as h how about how about this Mr. Chairman, how about this? Since the board engineer is putting something up, why don't we just mark that as B1 or something? >> Okay, >> a board exhibit.
>> I I accept that. >> It's not though. >> It's It's not. If if they submitted it as an exhibit and they put any notation on it, that exhibit is an exhibit.
>> Okay. And this is the township's tax mapping to be entered without edit, without overlay, without comment. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> I have a question. >> So, we'll call the township's 2025
tax maps, which are revised in January of 2026, the current tax map set B1 as the full set. and we referenced sheets 35 and 36. >> Okay.
>> And if needed, I have the prior set of 2023 available to us to enter if needed. >> Okay. >> So B1 is sheets 35 and 36 township 2025 tax revis. >> Correct.
But a a >> exhibit they put together using so it's >> you put together with with >> which shows the the lots on both side of the street. >> Right. >> A8 is source material from the 2023 tax
map set. A9 is source material from the 2025 tax map set. But we've been asking questions on the size of the relative lot the relative size of the lots around and that ah shows them both on the same >> Yes. >> which is what for the record sake of
product >> distinct from what the tax >> Yes. Right. >> But it was it Yeah. I mean, it was their exhibit where they've combined sheets 35 and 36 from the 2023, but it was presented and it was the only thing that
shows the lots on either side of the street in relationship to each other, which I would like to see again and have comment because you did testify as to a few of the lots on the other side of the street also, and you said they're across the street, but it's hard to tell from
looking at the separate sheets. So, could you comment on that? in reference to A8. >> Mr. Sherman, if I could stop. Do you have additional version of exhibit A8? You can pull up on >> Is that this? >> No,
>> A8 was the first thing she showed. The first >> was that was we had that up on the screen earlier. >> No, we did have it on the screen earlier. Yes, >> he had it sourced, not me. the area around >> he put up her two exhibits that she
presented to right >> 66 minute break for them to get their access >> well I mean she has the paper version there that's >> the paper version >> okay I just fig I'll make it harder
All right. So, do you want us to go back to that exact >> If you could just put up the paper version, right, and refer because he mentioned a couple lots across the street and the size that they were and it's difficult to tell from the two separate maps. >> Got it. Okay. >> Which is, you know, >> we'll put that back up. >> Okay. Thank you.
Matt, just help Kirstson just get that. >> Good. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Vanna. >> Okay. What was the question? >> So, Mr. So, Mr. had mentioned several of the lots across being non-conforming and
smaller and and just now that we have an idea what where those are >> relative to lot six. >> Can you sorry can I just ask one other level of difficulty? Only the ones that are in the same zone. >> Yes. >> Only in the RA130.
>> Yes. Yes. Okay. >> Okay. How do I want to do this? >> Good point. >> Can we tell some of this? They told us. You told us to write.
>> Okay. So, let's see if >> Let's see. >> So, exhibit A8. >> I'm not sure where it stands, so I'll just keep moving around. So, number 35 is our property, right? >> The property that I was referring to
across the street is number 44. >> Okay. which is undersized. >> There is no number 44. What is the lot number? >> Across the street is the house number. >> What lot number is that? >> Oh, what lot number is that? That's uh lot 5.01. >> Thank you.
>> 501 is small. So there's five and there's 502. >> Oh, and these are >> and then there's four and then there's three and then there's two and then there's one >> 501 5 and 502. >> I I have an I have an idea, Mr.
Chairman. Yes. Can >> I just get Can we just take a one minute break just to get this like straightened out real quick? Is that okay? >> Sure. >> Okay. But let's make it five minutes this time though. We ran a little long. >> So all these lots is small.
>> This was three. That one's seven. This one's four. That one's almost three. 22.7 >> I don't think we did before. I don't think it's necessary, but if you want to just >> I think since nobody left, you're okay. >> Yeah, >> no one's left. Yeah.
>> Although we want to >> I think if there were a change, you have to recall the vault roll and show that. So, >> um council, you want to >> Oh, yes, please. >> So, So based on the board's questions on
just wanting to understand the lot sizes, the non-conformities, what zones those properties are in, we were using the tax map, but I think we could put a better exhibit together that's easier to follow that the board can see maybe a table that shows all these things and
then we can get clarity on those items. The board could continue its questions and then um we can go from there. So, I'd ask if we can continue without further notice. We got the schedule from the board secretary. June 15th would be the next available date that both myself and Mr. Simon and our teams are
available. So, we would respectfully request that the board could adjourn without further notice to that date. >> Uh, it's certainly okay with the board and Mr. Simon just for the record that you you agree to that. >> June 15th.
>> Okay. Thank you. >> Yes. Um would it be appropriate to ask if um in those adjacent non-conforming lots you could see whether or not they have restrictions on building and lot uh and
um impervious coverage other than what it's zoned for because I'm I am curious about whether we're going to potentially create a lot that's disadvantaged relative to other smaller lots. Yeah, I can do a um Yeah, I could do an Oprah
and see if there's any resolutions of approval on those properties. Sure, I can do uh I'll I'll pick the surrounding lots that and uh and do an Opra request and see if that's there. >> Mr. Rob, >> I I want to piggy back on what Ms. Van order had said. Um,
I would also like to see I mean I I see on the exhibits there are non-conforming lots to the left and to the right of of the property in question. Uh, when those um when those properties were divided
uh this wasn't for a clapping, but but when were they when were they done? So that's that's going to I think is going to be key information for for the board up here. >> I'm happy to do that. >> Thank you. >> I think and we could talk about this at a later time. I don't know if that
necessarily plays a plays a factor, but I we can look at it as to the Calfman case's um analysis of you know consistency with the area. Right. >> But if that is something that the board feels they would like to know as part of their analysis,
>> um I'm happy to to to do an OPRA and see if I can get documentation to that effect. >> It's just part of the bigger picture that, you know, we all would like to see. >> Yeah. And there and we did do a letter to the board that had some of the prior approvals in it. Um and it was more in
relation um Mr. Rabbitz to the um the the 25 versus the 33 or the 50 to 66. But that did demonstrate in that in that letter that we provided and we can go over it again some of the some applications that were approved by the board with subdivision deeds that
created certain lots. So we did provide some of that information. I believe one was from 1999. I think one was from 2006. So they were So I'm saying some were relatively recent. I think somebody was alluding to the fact that they might have been created a lot of these lots might have been created like pre MLUL,
right? But um I'll I'll look into that at that's fine. >> Yeah. To the extent that you know we have a broader understanding of the area and kind of the history that led us to this point. Okay. >> Well, any any of that information could
be useful whether it's Germaine or >> No, I I it's a fair it's a fair it's a fair comment. That's fine. >> Thank you. >> Here's a question for for us then. I mean, is that something? Do we rely on the applicant's council to put together this information? >> It's his application.
>> I know, but are we are we then just saying, "Oh, sure. That sounds I mean, shouldn't or you you guys double check it, I assume?" Right. >> Yeah, I'll take a look at it. You'll have a chance to review it before the the meeting >> as will Mr. Simon.
>> Yeah. So, so Mr. files. My my my goal in this too, >> yeah, >> was to get these exhibits together and file them in advance of the meeting so that way you guys the board you guys the board can can look at the I can look at the materials in advance and of course I'll copy Mr. Simon.
>> I've been copying him on every transmitter we have. I'm happy to copy him on this. >> Okay. All right. Yeah. What he's talking about public records anyway. It's not like >> anyone can look him up. >> Well, yeah. No, I totally understand >> and and we may have questions where we reach out to some of the municipal
professionals too as part of that um due diligence. So, >> can I add something to this because it was one of the questions I had. Um you went through the effect of this project on the streetscape
going up and down the street, which is a fair thing to do. But our concern has more to do with the zone and the area rather than just the street. So
if if you have anything that can talk about the effect of the project on the zone, it's something that you can think about beforehand. So when we ask the question the next time you're sort of prepared because
there are a number of project number of properties in the area. Well right now they can be they could say divide in two and meet the zone. Well now they can come in and say well we're going to divide this in
three or maybe even four you know and so are we opening up and and this this can happen at any time. I'm not saying that this project is going to open it up, but it can happen any time. But as a planning board, we want to get a sense
of where we're going in the future if we approve something like this and what could be the effect on the larger zone. >> We can we can talk about that amongst ourselves when we're doing master planning. >> Yeah. I mean, Mr. Benois, that's ultimately going to be the board's
decision on what kind of a case we made, right? But what we were trying to explain and we'll obviously do it again is the fact that we were able to meet all the setbacks requirements, the coverages that that that's what we were saying. We were not impacting the zone in a substantial way because despite the
lot size reduction, we still met the width the streetscape was like you said just one part of it and this is more of like a summation, but we were also demonstrating how we met a lot of the other or substantially a lot of the other bulk requirements. So, that was part of that argument that you're kind
of bringing up, but we we'll make sure to when Matt finishes to to hit on that. That's fine. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Sure. >> Okay. So, >> Okay. So, I guess we're good. We'll make the announcement. Oh, >> yes. You guys will get the board an extension. >> Yeah. If you if you send me I'll I'll
put it on the record now. We'll grant the board an extension through June 30th. I guess you do you like it through the end of the month that we're carrying to. Okay. >> So, I'll do June 30th, 2026. You can send me something to sign. that's fine, too. But I'm putting it on the record and then um yeah, if you could just make the announcement, that'd be great.
>> Absolutely. Okay. So, that's it. Let me make the announcement. Okay. So, the application under of uh let me start again. The application of Mark and Lynn Piccolo uh under number PB-08-25 concerning property located at block 3501, lot 6, 35 schoolhouse lane in the
RA130 zone. The hearing on this application is going to be carried to the board's June 15th, 2026 meeting, 7:00 p.m. here in the municipal building. No further notice will be required as to publication or uh service to property owners for the 200 ft. The announcement I'm making right now serves as your notice to members of the public.
Come back on June 15th for the uh the next part of this hearing. >> Great. Thank you everybody. >> Thank you. on the agenda. We're not empty. >> All right. We don't have much more to do, do we?
>> I just No. Well, I uh >> Right. But I mean, >> is there anything for us? Is there >> I just have I want to talk about the master plan a little bit >> here. If you're if you're we do have a little bit more business, so if you if you don't want to sit down and listen,
you can please clear the >> Yes. Well, don't want to kick everybody out. It's still an open meeting. >> We just have to be quiet. But yes, >> stop talking. >> Thank you. >> Yeah.
>> Throw in my file. >> No, I don't want this. Not as bad as I thought. >> Okay. So, um, yeah. Well, moving on to other I don't know. Is there anything from the legislative committee? >> No. >> Okay. Then then all I wanted to talk about is, you know, kind of what's happening with the master plan?
>> Folks, folks, we're still in a meeting. Yep. >> Thanks. >> Um, so now that the uh kind of the the the major crush on affordable housing is over, Liz has actually had time to sit down and start to to work with us on
that. Uh, we have formed a steering committee and met a couple of times to move forward on the master plan. Steering committee now consists of of the board of those of us on the board. It's the the mayor, Councilman Ravitz, myself, and Linda Murphy.
>> Um we have um Brian Morgan from the uh environmental commission. We have uh Megan Burke from the economic development um committee. We have uh Betty Simmons has agreed to join us. She's she's on the board of adjustment.
Did I miss anybody? >> Plus, she's a longtime member of Tac >> and longtime member of TAC. Yeah, former member of TAC. I guess that's it for the steering committee. Um, and in order to get things going, we got Matt and Liz put together uh the schedule that has us
completing and signing off on the master plan, a new master plan by uh end of June of 2027, giving us about a month and a half of of leeway there to to in case things don't work out. But in order
to get that, it's kind of a compressed schedule. in order to get that means we've got to start soon. And so we have they will be starting with some public forums um which will be there's three that are now scheduled. There will be two in person uh and one Zoom session.
Uh on May 21st, there'll be at 78 7 o'clock. There'll be one at the Freely Heisen Middle School um and in the gym at there. And on on uh Thursday the 28th, there'll be a 7:00 Zoom meeting.
And on Saturday the 30th, there'll be uh an in-person meeting at the Normandy Park School >> at 10:00 a.m. >> What? at 10 a.m. >> at 10 a.m. Oh, I Oh, you're right. Yeah, thank you. At 10. I s >> No, that was 10 10 a.m. Saturday morning. All right.
So, that's that's the the initial public outreach. Um that will be followed by some bunch of one-on-one and individual messages and some more kind of >> through the summer and then the fall again there will be some more um more
focused public sessions um as we get forward. Those initial ones will be intended just to generally um get a sense of where people's feelings are and broad the goals start to set up the goals and objectives for our consideration and and consider. So
that's kind of where we stand now give you the update. So >> could we also um I guess if there's time after meetings we've never made time for ourselves >> right >> to talk about ideas to talk about you know planning issues maybe you can put
time aside after meetings after >> well I'm still trying to figure out and we've talked a little bit about having a you know it's like because you know the you have on the steering committee there's four of us on the board so that that's not a a quorum and we've discussed whether to have some sort of a a subcommittee on the the board itself
self um with one function would be to kind of review what comes out of all of the stuff you know as Liz knows you're writing these things is something that comes up but reviewing for for content and you know and and you know errors and all that so I'm not
quite sure how that works but but we would yeah no but I and and we would have you know sessions here but we certainly you know as board members and I don't know we talked about oneon-one Right. >> We Yes, we and sorry certainly we can do
Yes, there's oneonone I mean but we could do some sort of session with one with the whole board, >> right? >> Um early on. >> Okay. >> Or I mean later as well, but I mean just at the more towards the beginning of the process. So, I mean certainly I I please
board members all come to at least one of the public workshops, >> but uh in addition I think we could also um maybe do something with with the board maybe not at the June 15th but after you know maybe over the summer. >> Okay.
>> You know I um just to build off of that for a moment on the board of education we get the whole board together periodically for what we call a retreat. It's a public meeting. We we do advertise it, but it's no one comes because it's we're talking about topics
that are mostly internal. And I'm thinking that we might be able to do something similar to that. Um uh you you can you can say it's for the purpose of discussing something something and you know no decision will be made. It's just a it's just an internal thing.
>> It would certainly be ideal if we could work it into one of our regular meetings. I don't know what our schedule is coming up. So >> June 1st one's pretty open since they took the 15th June 1. Our next meeting is relatively open. >> Maybe we block all applicants and just talk to ourselves.
>> We don't have any as of then. Well, we got a day off coming. But >> but yeah, but now we can don't cancel the meeting. Let's let's do some work. >> No, I think that actually might be ideal. Okay, let's put that on the agenda. >> Leave it at a public meeting and and you
know, no applicants. Yes. >> Yeah. If people want to work, it's a work session. We do some like literally >> and we can talk we can think a little bit more about how we might want to structure it, but I think certainly we can talk about the results of what what the you know the good
>> I mean this topic before us in this application is a great one to talk about. >> Yeah, you and I have discussed it also. Okay. Um, I think that's it then, right? Uh, any p any comments from the public?
>> Um, there were a couple other things I wanted to have us mentioned, although I didn't bring my supporting information because I couldn't find it in my new computer. So, um, >> Windows 11, we'll do that. Um, uh, Donna and, uh, our
superintendent took a look at the number of students that come out of our multi-unit developments, those specifically related to affordable housing. It turns out that not many uh, uh, uh, school age children come from
those types of developments. And that I think it carries true not only for the affordable housing units but for the market rate units as well. So we're not seeing and I've heard people say this, you know, you're going to build these multi-unit uh properties and there's
going to be an influx of students to the school. It's not the case. It just doesn't happen. Um and that's consistent with what we've experienced before with multi-unit developments and it's also consistent with the experience statewide. Mhm. >> So, so it wouldn't be true that if I
build a 100 units in a multi-unit development, I'm going to get, you know, 300 kids or something. It doesn't doesn't work that way. >> So, I just wanted to make that a part of the record, too, because that does come up a lot. And, you know, that would be
the answer. That's not what the stats are telling us right now. >> Um, and I think uh um um Rick, I sent you a little summation of that in an email. Yes. >> Um, and if you look at it from a onetoone standpoint, you get
>> you get maybe out of all of the multi-unit developments, I think that we looked at as of now, it was like almost like a one to one was 22 students >> something like that >> out of the whole, >> you know, mish mash. So, so I think
that's comforting in a way uh because um while we do want to keep the character of our neighborhood which is largely single family housing, the fact that we do have to have these multi-unit developments is not as big a detriment, certainly not as big an impact to the
school district as some people have assumed. Um the second thing uh that I wanted to mention is that there's some pending legislation having to do with pilot programs which may uh affect Morristown more than
Morris Township. But the pending legislation, which is still working its way through committee, I believe, uh would require that uh the pilot agreements and the municipalities doing same would be forced to contribute some
portion to the school district. >> Right now, um I think it's 95% goes to the municipality for the pilot payment and 5% goes to the county and zero goes to the school. it's only applicable to
um property improvements. So, the land is still treated the same, but the improvements are the are the uh part that gets the u benefit, if you will, of the pilot program. Um, uh, I sent over some information about
the impact that's had on the township over the last 17 years, um, relative to the share of the school tax levy >> because Marstown is strategically using pilot programs to manage their share
that they pay to the school system. So, um, and you you can almost track you can track when you see it go up and down, you can track back to when they approved a pilot program that would bring that percentage back down. >> So, for the first time since their
revalid 2023 um, they are paying um, more than 40%. Um, uh, it's it's not going to last. I can tell you that. They're probably going to take some action on that. But uh for the
first time ever, we've also been below 60 for the last couple years >> in the township. >> It's very it's very um insightful. The other thing I'd say is that we're 10 years past our last rebal. Happened I think in 2016 if I'm not mistaken. Uh so
we may be looking at a revaluation in the next couple of years as well. So just put that on the map. in the new legislation, it would go to the school district and not like some of the pilot money is going to the Mars education fund. Correct.
>> So, let me enlighten you on that. This was a um it was a proposal by the council president from Marstown uh that they would give us a a portion of a 20-year pilot program equal to $1.8
$.8 million over the 20-year period, which translates to $90,000 a year. So, when you say you're giving, and they didn't give it directly to the school system, they made a donation or they're making a donation year-over-year to MEF, who then provides us different grants
for things that are positive for the school. So, um the uh when you look at the amount of equalized property tax assessment that shifts with a pilot program of 1.8 over 20 years is like a
drop in the bucket. So, we appreciate what they did of course and thank them. But, u I think that that that that's not the solution that we would be looking for. Um it it was a uh it was a kind
gesture and I that's about all I can say about it except for the fact that they gave it to MF and not to us. So >> yeah, right. >> I think for tax reasons I would guess, you know, make it a charitable donation. >> Linda, I'm interested in the information you've put together and so if you could
send me copies of that, that'd be great. And also I would like to point out that um the situation where the school district um with with respect to pilots with the libraries is even worse. >> It's the libraries are suffering cut out completely. >> Yeah.
>> When a pilot goes in. >> Yeah. They're suffering also. The joint library in >> So unlike the school uh district, the library can't set its own budget. >> Right. >> Okay. Um, I guess any other >> then I would uh entertain a motion to
>> I'd like to make a motion that we adjourn the meeting. >> Second. >> I wasn't sitting in the right spot, but you know, I'm in the spirit of Joe. >> Joe, >> he knows I'm not a favor.