of Morris Planning Board for October 20th, 2025. The legal notice required in accordance with the open public meetings act has been satisfied and a statement certifying same will be executed. Could you please rise and join me for the pledge of allegiance?
>> I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Um, could you call the role?
>> Yes. Mr. Barrett >> here. >> Mr. Van order >> here. >> Mr. Flowers >> here. >> Mr. Ravage >> here. >> Miss Murphy >> here. >> Mr. Ben >> here. >> Mr. Quillin >> here. >> Mr. Brigia >> here. >> Mr. B >> here. >> Mr. Warner
>> here. >> Miss Laney here. Mr. here. >> Okay. Our first order of business is a consideration of a resolution. Mr. Warner, you want to tee that up? >> Certainly. Happy to tee it up. Chairman,
thank you. Yes, that was the Murray Contracting LLC resolution for three addresses, 73 Gables Road, 20 Squirrel R1, and 113 Gables Road. Uh that was a preliminary final subdivision approval in the RA35 single family residential
zone. Uh three lots into 12 lots for residential single family dwelling as I recall purposes. Uh and I believe it was a 9 to zero unanimous approval. uh and uh numerous conditions of
approval associated there with uh as well as dedication of proposed pension basin roadway to the township, installation of landscape screening uh drainage uh uh uh
conditions, just to name a few. And as always, we hope that the resolution was an accurate memorialization of the board's decision. Uh and we will as always find out momentarily And I believe I'm sure Sony has a list of who's qualified to vote on the
resolution. Probably all mine perhaps close to me. >> Uh board, any comments on the resolution? Yes, Mr. Cohen. >> Uh I have two comments. One is uh pages four and five. On page four, there's a mention of one of the witnesses for the
applicant, Nicholas Draco. And then on page five, numbers 11 and 12, um, refer to Mr. Roco. I think that's the same person, but >> uh, I'm not sure. >> Absolutely. And what we will do, if I
could have a conditional resolution, whichever is the correct name, that will be accurately reflected on pages four and five. We'll have to double check that as I don't know off hand. Oh, >> and then my other um comment which is
more substantive is about it's on page 12 item number 10. It's about the proposed top soil reserve pile. Um the applicant had originally uh proposed putting a top soil reserve pile right
next to the current existing house that the property surrounds. And I had uh not liked that. and they said they would move it, but now I see it just says they'll move the piles further away subject to review and approval of the
township engineer andor Mars County Soil Conservation District. And I don't remember the Mars County Soil Conservation District having the power over this matter. Ultimately, the county has to provide plan certification for the solar weather
measures and those stock piles are not proposed final, but they're temporary in nature for the construction. So, it was a discussion over the locations on the property. They'll temporarily stockpile the materials and then redistribute them
in final grading. So, that is that is already concurrent jurisdiction to the county. Can I county overrule you though? Um the applicant has to satisfy me
or the board and then the county gets the second bite at then concur concurring to the same. It wouldn't work the alternate way. >> So I think it should say and instead of andor. Okay, that's all I have. Okay. Mr. Chamber.
>> Yes. >> One small edit, first page, first paragraph, last sentence. Uh, proposed lots 451 through 452, 4512, I think.
>> Uh, yes. Thank you. >> Can't take credit. Somebody else who uh can't vote on it noticed it. That unnamed thanks to that unnamed person as well. >> Mr. Barrett.
>> Yeah. Uh one um additional comment in the same day, more of a typo. Believe it's on page uh looks like it's on page 11. uh the now therefore uh language the second
line should be the um believe it should be the 20th day of October 2025 >> oh up at the very top yeah the uh >> was that the date we rendered the decision >> would it be today >> oh it should be today's date isn't it
when we're >> oh be it resolved I'm sorry that's right this was originally Thank you that it was originally going to be on the meeting of the six That's right. Thank you. >> Um and uh I just got uh carried
and let me just double check. Yeah, it we changed it elsewhere but not there. Okay. Thank you. >> I hope that wasn't strike three. I can't believe it was >> any other comments.
>> And I'll entertain a motion. >> I'll assume it's as as amended. >> As amended. Right. >> So moved. Second. >> Would you call the roles? >> Mr. Barrett? >> Yes. >> Mr. Flowers?
>> Yes. >> Mr. Babage? >> Yes. >> Mercy? >> Yes. Mr. Ben? >> Yes. >> Mr. Quillin? >> Yes. >> Mr. >> Yes. >> Mr. B? >> Yes. >> Thank you.
Okay. Moving on to our public hearings. First one on the agenda is PBO825. Sonia, we have >> Yes, Mr. Simmons P825 Mark and Lyn Piccolo
for minor subdivision block 3501, lot 635 schoolhouse lane in the RA130 zone. applicant proposes the mining subdivision to create one additional lot. The applicant will also
seek the variance for the lot area. >> Mr. Warner. >> Yes, Mr. Chairman, I did have an opportunity to review the notice. I did uh you may recall I believe there was an issue with respect to a prior notice if I'm not mistaken and some changes were
made. It was it was renoticed. bear with me. Uh the content of the notice appears to be sufficient. The timeliness appears to be sufficient. Was certified now October 10 published
October 10 both at least 10 days prior to this evening. Um but I do recognize we have objectors council. Uh so I suspect the applicant has no issue with the notice. Um but uh I don't know if the objectives council continues to have
an issue with respect to notice or not. We'll find out. Um but I think the not I mean I think the notice is sufficient both in content content and timeliness of service and publication. So we can proceed. >> Okay. >> Miss Lenville.
>> Thank you. Uh Mr. Chairman, my name is Nancy Lenville. L O T T I N V as in Victor I L L E with the firm of Prime TuL and the Hackinack, New Jersey. Representing Mark and Lynn Piccolo,
owners of 25 Schoolhouse Lane, lot 6 block 3501. Um at this time, I would like to um query the council for the objector as to his uh opinion of the notice.
Yes. Yes, please. Yeah. Members of the board, good evening. Um, good to be back here. Rob Simon from Herald Law here on behalf of Mark and Jamie Milano, 40 Schoolhouse Lane, block 3601, lot 5. Um, thank you for
um recognizing me for purposes of addressing uh notice. Um, I have written a number of times uh to the board now with regard to uh issues regarding notice and completeness um at this point
and I thank council for correcting um most of what we perceive to be errors with the initial uh notice and changes to the plan that were necessitated by those errors. I want to point out uh two
aspects that I think fall under the category of notice and application completeness. Uh number one is that while the applicant has identified in their notice that six variances are
required as part of this application. two for lot area, two for uh minimum lot width at the required setback and two for minimum required lot width at 40 ft further from
the required uh setback. Um we also believe that there's a variance or variances that are required um pursuant to your zoning table for um deficient
density lot density. So for example in the RA130 zone where this property is located there's a minimum under minimum area requirements and I'm looking at the zoning table directly. Um, it not only
has a minimum square footage of a 130,680 square ft, which corresponds to a minimum lot size of 3 acres. But there's a separate category and the separate category is called uh per family square
feet that deals with typically density requirements for a particular zone. So, in the Mars Township ordinance for the RA130 zone, and this also applies actually to all of the residential zones
in Mars Township, but there's a separate category called per family. And what that pertains to is the allowed density per lot. And in this case, the per
family square footage, not surprisingly, is identical to the minimum lot area requirement of 3 acres. So in this case, that you cannot have more than one
family per 3 acres. And here there clearly is a desire to exceed that or intensify that and that also triggers variance relief for the applicant
essentially for both lots. So you go from six variances to now eight variances. that requirement was not identified in the notice that was uh provided by publication
um and to each family from what I understand within 200 ft. That's notice. The other point I want to make and I think it's appropriate to make it now because I made it in my correspondence on not one but two occasions is that
under both your ordinance and also published case law that where you're seeking variance relief for in this case deficient
lot area density lot width time four that one of the requirements is that you show what the proposed home is going to look like both in terms of floor plan, both
in terms of elevations, so that the board and the public has a full and fair opportunity to weigh the necessary evidence needed to assess whether the applicant meets its burden of proof.
for in this case the eight variances requested. And in this case, while we know, and we'll get into this later, that there's a house that has already been constructed or about to be finished constructed uh on one of the lots, one
of the lot the other lot doesn't have a house on it currently. And there's been no elevations, floor plans, designs submitted to the board in
support of any variance relief uh for the lots. And we believe that both under the case law and I cited to it as well as under your ordinance itself because actually your ordinance even dealing with minor subdivisions
relates back to the certain aspects of the site plan ordinance which includes the need to show the proposed home on the lot. And as you saw even from the revised plans that what is shown are
merely conceptual boxes uh conceptual septic systems and the like. And so we respectfully contend uh in order to preserve the record that the application should not again I
referenced this many many months ago that the application should not be permitted to proce to proceed until such time as the applicant provides the board and the public with drawings that show
the proposed home on the lot especially given the fact that you're talking about a lot that is seeking a lot area variance where 3 acres are required and approximately two
acres are proposed. So obviously I'll have a lot more comments and questions throughout but I just wanted to bring for the benefit and courtesy of the board uh board professionals uh those items to the board's attention. Thank you. >> Thank you Mr. Simon.
>> Um >> if I may. >> Yes. >> Um thank you Mr. Chairman. Um first uh with first of all with reference to density I am unfamiliar with the the uh schedule that um Mr. Simon is referring
to that um per family. Okay, thank you. Um the the um notice sets forth has a savings clause that indicates that any and all variances that may additionally be found to be required are are hereby noticed.
The notice is extremely detailed and explicit with respect to the fact that it is a 4.125 acre lot that is being requested a minor subdivision for two two acre properties for two single family homes. The
subdivision application itself shows and depicts in very in great clarity two home two single family homes. the um I would suggest to you that the per family square feet is incorporated in the uh request for the uh lot area variance and
the application itself as well as the notice is quite clear that there's absolutely no question in anyone's mind that less than 130,000 square feet would be uh available per family. So uh to put a label called density um is
probably accurate but not necessary in this situation. Secondly uh as of I believe July or June or July of se of of this year the application was deemed complete by the TCC. Uh the um
in in Mr. Simon's initial objection letter which I think was dated August 14th. Um he asserts that uh what he has stated this evening that the um application is incomplete because it
does not have um architectural drawings, floor plans and other uh site plan related details for on the proposed new lot which we have depicted in our minor
subdivision plan. um with a footprint of a foundation, uh driveway, walkways, and additional um amenities that all fit within the site the uh building envelope. That being said, this
it it he is essentially asking for a site plan application when all that is being requested is a minor subdivision. Uh we are not at this point asking for um uh approval of construction on the
proposed new lot. And I would bring to the the board's attention a most recent ordinance uh passed in um Morris Township I believe in January um that uh indicated that um one and two family
dwellings uh do not require site plan review and approval. Uh my client is not a developer. He is not requesting site plan approval of any particular uh construction on the property of a single family home. case merely
depicting uh for the purposes of of indicating com full compliance with sideyard, rear yard, front yard, setback, and building envelope that a built that a single family home can be constructed without additional variances
on the property that he's proposing for minor subdivision. Um again, I would point out that the board deemed the application complete. And so, uh, in my letter of September 18th, I expressed, um, essentially what I've just stated.
And I believe that, um, in any and all events, uh, that information is is not a matter of completeness. It is not on the checklist for a minor subdivision, and it is really substantive in nature, if it's necessary at all.
>> Mr. seven. >> So, I'll take them in turn. Um, first of all, regarding the notice, it it's crystal clear, and I think Miss Lville acknowledged it, that the ordinance does have a separate category for density. It's a separate category for a reason. I
didn't write the ordinance. It's because it regulates not only lot size but how many families can be within a certain area in a certain residential zone. And there's different requirements depending on the different residential zones. It's
a separate requirement. It has to do with density. It is not at all as council stated subsumed if that was implied into a lot area variance. There are two separate considerations that
need to be assessed by the board and by the public and that that was not noticed by the applicant. With regard to the providing of plans and elevations, I'll take council's argument backwards. First
of all, there's no contention that site plan approval, site plan approval, including lighting, landscaping, storm water management, utilities, and the like, applies to
one and two family homes. That's provided not only in your ordinance, also provided in the municipal land use law. That's not at all what we're saying. If the applicant came in with a fully
conforming two lot minor subdivision with no variances, council would be 100% correct and frankly I wouldn't be here. But that's
not the case. The case is that the applicant chose knowingly chose to make an application for what is now eight variances. The case law talks about the fact that
for a board to properly assess the negative criteria for the granting of variance relief, including whether creating an undersized lot with improper
density based on your ordinance with two variations, deviations of lot width are substantial. potentially detrimental to the neighborhood and substantially impair the zone plan and zone ordinance and zoning ordinance.
What does that turn on? It turns on an assessment of what's the property going to look like. And for the board to assess what the property is going to look like, it needs floor plans and elevations.
This has nothing to do with site plan approval. It has everything to do with what the case law talks about in terms of assessing the negative criteria. It talks about what is required by your own ordinance in terms of
an elevation plan at section 57-1 ton. Not to mention that no soil and sentiment plan, no utility plan, and no drainage plan was submitted as required by the township's minor subdivision
checklist. Now, in terms of what Miss Lenville states as to well, this was deemed complete by the technical review committee. Response to that as follows. I serve as board attorney a number of
municipalities. Applications are deemed complete by subcommittees all the time. The whole purpose of providing 200 for public notice, publish public notice is for the public to participate in the
application. And that's how a board learns about potential things that were inadvertently missed. part of the public process. And in this case through no one's fault that
we are raising issues that not theoretical issues, not philosophical issues, but issues that have a bases strictly set forth in your ordinance,
strictly set forth in your checklist and supported by published, not unpublished, but published case Well, so I believe without taking any notes that I
addressed Miss Lenville's um comments with regard to whether it's ordinance revisions, completeness, merger, and and the like. I'm I'm happy to answer any questions.
>> Yes, Mr. Warner. >> Yeah, I have a a question for Mr. uh actually I apologize. this applicants council through since we went back and forth and back. We didn't go for >> Yes. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Do you have >> I I would simply uh reply to Mr. Simon
that the Kaufman uh case, this is a Kaufman case u deals with the the the entirety of the evidence. And I find it somewhat disingenuous for him to be saying that floor plans are necessary to
judge the um what the house is going to look like in terms of the neighborhood under the terms and conditions of the of the Kaufman case. the there is no case law that I am aware of that indicates that floor plans would be something that
would have to be submitted uh to a planning board in a cost analysis. In addition to which there's nothing in the checklist that indicates that any uh proposed house is required for a minor
subdivision. In the realm of possibility, any number of styles of houses could be put on the uh on the property and this municipality does not have a design
ordinance. So, um, the situation is we have a property that can be developed within the requirements of the bulk standards of the of the ordinance and the um necessity of committing to a particular
um frontage on a on a single family house for an unknown owner at an unknown time is just ridiculous. and and that is why it's not required. So um with and
that's basically and I and I rest on on the argument that the matter is complete based upon the application and the checklist that was submitted and reviewed. Uh and that's it for now. >> Mr. Warner. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Simon,
you're not uh contending that uh there's a density variant, a D5 density. >> No, it's that that's a great uh segue, Mr. Warner. Thank you for that. So, what Mr. Warner is referring to is that under
the uh municipal land use law um under 405D-70D5 um that identifies different Dvariances that are not before the planning board but are rather before the plan the board of adjustment with the supermajority vote
etc. And one of those variances is what's called the D5 variance or a density variance. The reason why, and I thank Steve, I didn't mention anything about a specifically a D5 variance is that it doesn't apply here. And the
reason why it doesn't apply here, as I'm sure Mr. Warner will agree, is that there's an exception under the D5 board of adjustment density variance for one and two F and and two lot uh
developments. So that when you have a um one and two lot residential development you that you are seeking a density deviation for it
does not fall under a D5 density variance. I agree with that. >> Thank you for confirming that Mr. Simon. >> Did you have anything further on to answer the question? >> I always have a lot further but you can go on. Yes.
>> We we may be similar in that regard. >> I know we are, Mr. >> But but but but the uh and I appreciate you confirm that is why I asked that question knowing the answer and appreciating that you confirmed. Same. So a D5 would if there were a D5 at issue uh to finish what Mr. Simon was
saying, it would require the zoning board of adjustment to hear the case, not us, we would not have that authority. Uh so with confirmation uh from objectors councel that uh it is a bulk variance that objectors council is contending is that issue or required to
the extent it may be required uh under the pond run case and its progeny uh so long as the notice is sufficient uh for and I'm paraphrasing awfully uh the the uh for the average uh member of
the public uh to have an understanding of what's at issue uh in the application, date, time, place, have an opportunity to see the plans, etc. to have a general description uh and sufficient uh uh recitation of the variance relief. Uh a the applicant can
rely on the catchall language for at least bulk variances, not a dvariance and certainly not one that would absolve this board of jurisdiction and authority to hear the case. uh and and B uh the uh
uh it would be sufficient in my opinion for a member of the general public with the notice that was provided uh to decide whether or not they uh desired to look further into the application to look at the plans and to make further
inquiry and show up at the hearing. Uh so that's a long-winded way of saying uh with all due respect to Mr. Simon's uh uh objection to the notice. I still find the content of the notice to be sufficient for purposes of the applicant
proceeding with this application. Uh even assuming arguendo that a bulk variance uh for density is required. Uh so I disagree with Mr. Simon and I agree with the applicants council on the notice remaining sufficient.
Uh as far as uh the other argument which is uh for uh paraphrasing purposes uh me thinks the applicant needs to provide architectural plans in order for the board to have what it needs uh to decide
the application at least and I believe Mr. Simon when he says case law is likely rely uh uh referring to the and I apologize to the applicant in this particular case's name it's either
suchino or sino but uh versus township of Berkeley Heights planning board 237 NJ super 175 an appellet division decision in 1989. Um while there is some discussion of a potential requirement in that case and
and by the trial judge and the trial judge was overruled by the appellet division in that case at least as to some aspects. I do not believe that at least at this stage uh the board is required or I should say the applicant is required to provide architectural
plans for the board to hear this application. Uh I say that because it is not unusual i.e. That's a double negative. It's fairly common uh for minor subdivisions
uh to have concept dwellings provided on the plans for purposes of deciding uh whether or not the subdivision approval should be granted. Uh and that allows in essence the applicant should they come in with a single family dwelling uh on
in this case lot proposed lot 6.02 O2, the one that does not yet have a house being constructed on it. Um, so long as they meet all zoning requirements, uh, they can proceed as of right to build that home. If they do not and they
deviate, they may have to come to one of the land use boards depending upon what those deviations are. So, I believe it's sufficient for the board to proceed and I would agree with applicants council in that regard as well. Uh, I I think Mr. Simon on behalf of his client's uh
objections are reasonable. Uh they're not frivolous in my opinion at all. U but I disagree with them both. Uh I think the notice is sufficient and I think the board has what it needs to hear the application if and when the board decides uh that for whatever
reason the board decides that you need architectural renderings as the proceedings proceed. Uh that may be a different story. But I don't believe you need them to for the applicant to begin presenting the case. And you may decide that you don't need them at all in order
to determine whether or not the minor subdivision along with the lot area, lot width, and possibly density bulk variances uh should or should not be granted. So again, to sum up, uh uh I would
concur with the applicants council on on both arguments and I believe the board can proceed. Any other comments from our other board professionals? >> No, I left out our planner and engineer. >> No. Any questions from the from the
ward? >> Okay. I think I'm going to follow the advice of our attorney and allow the application to proceed at this point. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, at this time, u I'd like, if very much if we could put up the minor subdivision plan.
>> And if I may, could we just get a list of who your witnesses will be, and I'll swear everyone in. >> Fine, that would be great. Um, the witnesses will be um Mr. Mark Piccolo, the property owner, [Music] ready,
I'm sorry. Um, [Applause] >> I'm sorry. Can you repeat that? >> I'm sorry. >> Can you repeat the the name? >> Alex Dy. >> Sorry. >> A planner. >> And uh, if all three of you will stand
and raise your right hand and our board professionals will do the same. Do all of you swear to God or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. Please proceed. >> Thank you. >> The chair's permission. >> Yes, please proceed.
>> Uh at this time, um do we I would like to mark uh for the purposes of the record, um the u subdivision application plan set prepared by Oxorn and Owen. Um and I believe it's
revised to October 1st, 2025. three pages, three sheets. [Applause] And I would then like to call my client, Mr. Mark Piccolo. Would you state the name address for the record?
>> Mark Piccolo, 35 Schoolhouse Lane. 35 35 Schoolhouse Lane, Morris Township, New Jersey. >> And you are the owner of the property? >> My wife, Lyn, and I are. >> And your wife is also here. >> She is. She's seated behind me.
>> All right. Um would you like to um give the board the benefit of your um ownership and your intentions for the property? Um >> Sure. First, I want to thank everybody for their time here tonight and
considering our application. Um, my wife Lynn and I purchased uh this house almost two years ago at this point. Uh, we're both from Kolan, New Jersey where my wife spent our entire life and uh I
lived for almost 25 years. Um, we raised four children in Kennelan. Uh, we were both business owners in Kennelan. myself, uh, I owned a restaurant for almost 25 years. My wife and her family. I ran a Montasauri preschool for almost
50 years. So, we're very much community-minded people. Um, again, raised our four children there. Our three oldests are now married with children of their own, and they have relocated to this area. Our oldest daughter bought a house in Morris
Township, one Knox Hill Road, a beautiful old historic house that they spent maybe way too much money, but a lot of time renovating it. It was a labor of love. And they have two of our
grandchildren, our two grandsons, uh, in that house right now that they're raising them. And my son and his wife bought a home in Morris Plains and did quite a bit of renovation on that home. and they're raising two more of our grandsons. So, we decided to move out
this way to be closer to them. We also have another uh adult daughter who's married with our only granddaughter. She's currently in Hoboken, but she's looking to move out this way as well. So, we bought this property because we want to be closer to our kids and our grandkids. Um,
and we think we designed a beautiful home uh that's kind of in keeping with the neighborhood completely as far as style, size. Um, the lot itself was quite a bit more property than we were looking for. We searched a lot on the
market for maybe two or three years to try to find something that met our needs, which the two of us really uh single level living, everything all on one floor, so we're not going to be doing a lot of up and down the stairs in our older age. Um, uh, we couldn't find anything, so that's why we decided to
build. Neither one of us was looking to build again. Um, and that's where we're at. And we love the neighborhood. Um, uh, talking about my wife's family being in education for 50 years. We find the schoolhouse so beautiful. Um, joined the
organization literally once became we became property owners. And, uh, as I said, it's a big piece of property. It's way too much for us to maintain and we're just trying to do a subdivision separating the house that we've built now from it and having a separate lot
>> for no planned purpose at this point. >> You um did you can you tell the board what um the property was improved with at the time you purchased it? >> When I purchased it, it was a single family home. Um we loved it. Um, it had
a lot of character. It had a slate roof. It, uh, but it had a lot of things. Uh, well, it didn't lend itself to single floor living, which is what we were looking for. Um, we also felt that, um, the garage was facing schoolhouse lane.
Wasn't a desirable footprint for a house. And the front door was actually facing what I later learned was a private driveway that runs off of schoolhouse lane that feeds a couple of lots up on top. But it was similar size house and square footage and all to what we ultimately are
building right now. So we felt that uh what we designed again kept kind of the same character of the property and the neighborhood. >> And the size of the house that you're building now is how many bedrooms, square feet, etc. >> Four bedrooms? 30 3,800 ft² I think is
where it's at. >> And I understand you're also going to put in the pool. >> Uh the pool is in already. Um >> there previously was a pool. >> There was a pool. Um probably a larger pool with a waterfall and things of that nature. Again, I probably didn't think I
would have another pool, but now that we're on four and a soon to be fifth grandchild arriving in New Year's, um we did we made a few changes uh uh for the sake of the grandchildren. >> And I think you indicated to me when we
uh first put the uh application together, the the plan set together that uh you might like to make some changes with respect to the proposed lot 602 with respect to the driveway. Is that correct >> on if we're granted uh a new approval
lot? Yeah, we would like that lot to probably have its own access. Uh and the driveway that we're currently using on the current house is the existing driveway. So, we haven't changed anything in that regard. the the new driveway. I was referring to
the location of the new driveway other than what's shown on [Applause] the mic. [Applause] So um this is uh sheet two. Could we advance one more sheet please?
Okay. I don't really have an opinion on the driveway of the proposed second lot. Um, obviously from what our professionals advised was that we had we put a footprint of a similar sized house to just show that a similar size house
could be constructed on the lot without requiring any other variances as far as setbacks or anything of that nature. But the actual, you know, direction of the driveway coming off Schoolhouse Lane, I I don't have an an opinion on it one way or the other. I haven't thought that far
down the road. >> All right. And as the seller of the property, you would be able to influence to some extent the uh construction of the house. >> Yes. >> Uh on the new lot, >> I I would hope so because it would obviously be our closest neighbor. And
again, we don't have any desire to do it. Maybe one of our children will want to build a house on there. Maybe it will be one of my wife's lifelong friends who might want to build a house there. But we don't have any plans for it. But obviously we'd love to have another neighborhood so close by similar to
ours. >> That's all I have at this time. >> Any questions from board professionals? >> Yeah, I'm >> pleasure. The chair. >> I don't. >> Okay. Not here.
>> Any questions from the board? >> I guess I'll ask a question. >> Yeah, go ahead. Uh, so when you bought the property, you knew it was less than six acres, right? >> Correct. >> So you knew >> you knew that to subdivide it would require a variance,
>> which you might or might not get. I don't know if you were thinking about subdividing it at that time. >> I wasn't actually and honestly didn't even know what the what the building lot was at 3 acres. Honestly, we bought it
and again loved the character of the house that was there. I mean, uh some things that we've never had in in other houses that we've owned. Again, a slate roof, a beautiful fireplace. Um actually brought in professionals to take a look at it to see if we couldn't just
renovate the existing space to make it what clearly we wanted again, which was one floor living and put I don't know, we might have put six months to a year just in exploring that option. So subdivision never was even on our radar when we bought the house and I would say easily a year into owning it. Then when
we decided that was going to we couldn't and everybody told us we'll spend more money trying to renovate that into what we ultimately need. We're better off knocking it down and building a new house. Well then and where is it going to be situated now? It's actually the front door is going to face schoolhouse lane which I think is a lot more
appropriate for the neighborhood and then for our needs. Um then it became okay now I have this huge extra uh a whatever you want to call it >> sideard >> sideyard that I did pay to mow for the
last year uh just to keep it obviously neat and and not unsightly um and certainly don't have any desire to have that much land later on. >> The the previous house was more was I think the previous house straddled your proposed lot dividing line. Is that true
or was very close? >> No, actually because I think actually the Well, I'll tell you what I think did straddle was the old the old pool. Oh, I see. >> I think the house itself is almost exactly in the same footprint, but the pool was set to the right of the house where our pool now is straight in line
with the house. So, it goes straight back. >> And the size of your lot, I I seem to recall from the last time we were here that the lot size was described as 4.5 acres, but now it's being described as something smaller. Does that have to do, this is maybe a question for your
council, does that have to do with the with the right of way for the >> Yes, it does. Um the situation was that u and I've given uh full documentation to your council as well as objectors council. The um right of way was never
dedicated along schoolhouse lane for this property or for possibly others. Um we did quite a bit of research into the title. The property was originally subdivided in 1960. Um, and the pro and the lot was created
at that time. Lot six subject property. >> When what date was? >> 1960. >> Okay. >> Um, at that point there was no dedication. It was a a a subdivision done before the ML well before the MLUL. Um, and without a plat. It was done by
deed. Um the road existed obviously at the time and the um four subsequent conveyances used the exact same description as in the original subdivision deed. Um and so there were
no apparently no one bothered to do a a survey an updated survey. So we were um somewhat caught by surprise to realize that the dedication had not occurred. Um and we then did a good deal of research which I laid out for Mr. Warner and and
Mr. Simon um with respect to the fact that the um right ofway is a 50-foot right of way pursuant to um typical minor street um in Morris Township. Um and we calculated all of the
dedescriptions came from the center line but the center line was never identified by width at all. So, we went on both sides behind to the side and up the road and we did locate uh 1989
uh uh dedication of schoolhouse lane for I believe it is um lot >> are we seeing there? So there was a dedication further up the street for a 25 foot halfwidth and the um
uh the matches the tax map which indicates a 50-ft rideway. So we have now shown on the plan uh let's >> I think are we looking at we're looking at the original set not >> that's not the revised show. It doesn't
have the 101. >> All right. Um [Applause] the these are the plans from last month >> two months ago. >> We need to show Oh gosh. Do we have a hard copy?
>> Yeah. >> We should have it. >> My hard copies are cracked. I just realiz like I This is the prior plan. >> This is the prior plan. [Music] >> All right. While while we're having an
adjustment, that is the prior plan, >> right? >> All right. Uh the new plan shows a 25- foot shadowed area that indicates the uh right ofway and that subtracted 15,247
square ft which reduced the acreage from 4.5 to 4.125. The reduction of the acreage by the 15,247 square foot right ofway reduced the
acreage from 4.5 to >> 4.159 4.159. >> That's the right plan. All right, let's move to the second page and then the third page.
Okay, that's the correct and and our engineer will testify to this. So by way of explanation that is why the lot size changed the full lot size this the two proposed subdivided line lots changed because we've now subtracted the right
of way area uh to show a 25 ft half width for schoolhouse lane which we're willing of course to dedicate to the township. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> That's all I have. >> All right. I think if there are no
further questions for Mr. Pickle. Any other questions? >> Unless Mr. Simon. >> Yeah, I just want to finish the No more questions from the board. Mr. Simon, >> Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman, I have one question. >> Hold on a second. >> Um, I'm looking at three of three on
those sat that was most recently sent to us. And it indicates here that the um >> sorry >> it was uh the the lot existing lot 6 was 4.15 which was the one before the
easement was applied but was when you looked at the proposed 6.01 and 6.02 if you add those two up it's 4.159. Is that correct? That's what you said. So, it wasn't easy to decipher that, but
uh it was on I was originally thinking we got the old plan again, but we didn't. >> Oh, I think Okay, Mr. Simon ask questions. >> You have a question? I mean or >> questions but this gentleman came up. >> Mr. Chairman, would you prefer to
>> I would prefer that Mr. Simon you go first and then the public uh can ask will they get a chance to ask questions? >> Sure. Happy sir just to be clear all members of the public will have an opportunity to ask questions of each witness as well as ultimately make
public comment. But as is not uncommon I there's that double negative again. As is common, uh the chair is having uh the representative objectors council ask questions first. >> And I would I would note that >> the discretion of the chair.
>> Yes. And I would note that the um the >> members of the public represented by Mr. Simon are do not are not allowed to ask questions. They make comments later, but they um but not questions of the witnesses during this proceedings. >> Yeah. I I've instructed my clients accordingly.
>> I'm sure you have. Yes. Make sure that everyone else knows that guidelines. >> Thank you. >> Yes. Uh Mr. Pickle, good evening. >> Um just bunch of questions in no particular order. Um
do the PL any of the plans sheets one, two, or three show existing conditions in terms of where the house used to be located on the property? I don't they're not noted on the plans.
And if I was to tell you because I have reviewed aerials of your application um and your property. Um first of all, there's a building that's currently
located on lot 6.02. You're familiar with that? >> Uh yes, I am. >> Okay. What is that building? >> Uh, it's a detached garage from the previous buil uh home. >> Is there a reason why that detached garage from the previous home remains on
the property right now without a single family home on it >> for lot 6.02? >> There's another reason. Well, it's currently holding all of my wife's and my possessions from the home that we moved out of in Kennelon. and we're
living in an apartment in Morristown right now. Uh so it's holding all of our possessions that'll get moved into the new house when we Yeah. >> Okay. Once you um get a CO and move into the new house, do you intend to use the detached garage that's currently on the
property as an accessory building structure uh for the existing home? >> I do not. Okay. So, is your intention to um knock what's what is your intention with regard to that garage?
>> I have not given it any thought um at this point in our construction. I'm not looking to spend any more money actually right now. So, I have no desires to do anything with it unless it needs to come come down. So, it's going to be until further
notice. It's going to be used for for storage, but not to house any vehicles. >> No, it it won't be used for anything once we move into the new house. >> Won't be meaning won't be used for storage either. >> It will not be used for storage either.
>> Okay. And with regard to you testified on direct about a pool that previously existed on the property. Um, am I correct to state that that pool um
was located on what is now proposed on lot on sheet three of three is lot 6.02. >> I don't believe so. I mean, if you have something that shows that it was, but I literally was probably looking at the spot where that pool used to be this
afternoon and I believe it's it's in my opinion it's all completely on 6.01. So, your sworn testimony is that none of the prior pool was located on lot 6.02.
>> Mr. Chairman, um this is not test this is testimony that's uh better directed to our engineer who also whose firm also uh prepared the uh site plan as well as did
the original survey work. Um, I think if we're going to be talking about location of previous, uh, structures that no longer exist, um, I think that would be questions more well answered through the engineer. >> The reason why I'm asking the questions
of this particular witness is that this particular witness testified to those facts on direct. That's why I'm questioning him on cross. He talked about the fact that none of the improvements um that were formally on
this property were located on what is now proposed to be lot 6.02. If that's his testimony, that's his testimony and we can move on from that. Um so you've never lived at the property,
right, Mr. Piccolo? >> Correct. And when you purchased this property two years ago before you closed, you did an inspection of the house. Correct.
>> That's my remembrance. Yes. >> And the issues that you raise about the the house at the time not being a singlestory house. Um, was that of concern to you
prior to you purchasing this property? >> No. >> And why not? >> Because I assumed that we could make that property into what we ultimately
hoped for. When you say what you ultimately hoped for was your intention to demolish the the home that was currently on the property when you purchased it. >> No. >> Okay. So, prior to purchasing the home,
did you communicate with any architect or builder about the ability to renovate the thenexisting home to make it a singlestory home that you desired? Not that I can remember.
And how long had you owned this property before you first contracted with a architect to design
this the property that's been built? I don't remember. >> And who determined where the house that is now been constructed on this property would be
cited on the property? >> I'm guessing that it was the professionals that we hired. >> You're guessing. Did you participate in a determination of where
on the property the house that was built would be cited? >> I'm sure my wife and I made ultimately made all the decisions. Do you do you recall specifically deciding to
put the house to the left of where the exist then existing house was located? My wife and I ultimately made the decision as to where that house is currently built. We have the ultimate decision. So, I'm going to say yes, we
made the ultimate decision. when you submitted plans or your contractor submitted plans for building permits to construct this house.
Was it contemplated that there would be a subdivision of this property? No. And what makes you determine that? It's just how I my recollection. Okay.
So, at what point did you determine that you were going to seek a subdivision of this property? >> I don't remember specifically. Was it during construction
of this home on this property? Sir, considering that we're still under construction of that home, then I think obviously we made a decision at some point during the construction because the house is still under construction.
And you stated in your direct that it came a point where you determined that the property was quote unquote too big of a property to maintain. When did you make that determination, sir?
>> I'm going to guess sometime along the way where I was paying a landscaper to cut the grass every week. It may also be that the previous owner had a very large tractor with a pullbehind mower that was in that
separated garage along with a regular John Deere. And I probably naively thought they were going to leave those there. They didn't. So that did it. Then I started to hire somebody to cut the grass on a weekly basis. And
>> so you didn't make any arrangements to um have the grass cutting equipment, mowers, etc. be included in the sale of the property? >> No, I did not. >> And um at what did you determine prior to
purchasing? We'll strike that. Um, do you recall how much money was being charged to you to cut the grass? I do not. And prior to purchasing the property,
you did no due diligence to determine the zoning standards applicable to the zone within which this property is located. >> I did not. And when you say the pool size is the same,
are you talking about the pool that is depicted on sheet three of three in the back of the property? I don't remember saying that I thought the pool was the same size. What I remember saying was that the orientation of the pool is completely different.
Yes, it's behind the house now where it was on the side of the house before. >> So, is the is the pool size bigger or smaller now versus what uh previously existed? >> I don't have any of the measurements. Uh
but my guess would be that it's significantly smaller because again we put it in specifically because we're soon to have five grandchildren and uh because my wife's family ran preschools for 50 years. We kept it only
3 ft deep in the low end and I don't think it goes above five or six feet in the deep end. So, it was specifically designed to be a small pool to accommodate our grandchildren. >> And do you when did you remove the pool
that existed when you purchased the property? How soon after you purchased the property? >> I believe it was removed, decommissioned or whatever it is that they do with it during the demolition of the the house. >> And do you remember when that demolition took place?
>> I do not. And do you remember um why it was that the architect concluded
that it wasn't um I think you said feasible, but that's what I wrote down to renovate the house as opposed to construct a new house. >> I'm sorry. The question is when did I decide? If you're taking notes for him. >> No, I'm not.
>> That's not appropriate. >> I'm not taking notes for him. >> You wrote a note and you and you referenced to him. >> I want to ask questions. I just want honest answers. >> I would like relevance. >> Wait, Mr. Chairman. >> Yes. >> Yeah. I I
whether or not that just occurred, I don't think applicants council's response for relevance is appropriate. So, I'll let the board observe whatever the board observed, but uh I think Mr. Simon can continue to the questions and I'd respectfully request the chair uh
perhaps uh suggest to applicants councel that the board will determine whether or not questions are relevant. If she has an objection, she can make an objection. >> Thank you, Mr. Warner. Please continue. Mr. >> I'll repeat the question. I apologize
for the delay. Um, what led your architect to conclude or what led you to conclude that it was better to engage in demolition and build a new house as opposed to renovating the
then existing house? Um, because professionals recommended it. >> Okay. Do you remember why the professionals recommended it? >> I do not remember specifically. And you stated that um what you
constructed here was a similarly sized home. Do you know what the approximate square footages of the home that you built here? >> I believe the plans and permit call for
3,800 square ft. Okay. And do you remember what the square footage of the house was that you demolished? >> I do not. Did you explore with your with the architect? By the way, what architect did you use to assess whether the first house could be renovated? Do you
remember? >> I do not remember their names specific. And um the you talked about the front door now facing schoolhouse lane. Did you discuss with the architect or >> can I ask I I will ask a question about
relevance here. I mean we are presented with the plans that have existing conditions. Um these are the existing conditions except as you noted there may be a building on it that's not shown. So I'm questioning on you know the relevance of asking the details of this house which has been permitted and
approved for construction and as shown on the uh as um existing conditions drawing. Well, the details as a profer is that this house was specifically constructed on the left
side of this property and permits were obtained to build the house, a new house on the left side of this property which is contrary to with all due respect to the applicant to what the
applicant testified and I've asked what I respect respectfully believe are relevant questions based on the direct examination answers that were provided by this witness and I've gotten a lot of
I don't remember I don't recall and so the only two more questions one of them is whether he the Mr. Piccolo, you referenced in your direct examination
that now the front door to the to the new house faces schoolhouse lane. So my my question is did you discuss with your architect prior to demolishing the prior house whether the house could be
renovated so that the front door would face schoolhouse lane? If you recall, >> I would say that we did. >> And what was the reason why the house could not be renovated so that the front door would face schoolhouse lane?
>> I would be totally speculating, but the fact of the matter is that the old house had under had garages that were underneath the house. So, in order to put a front door where the garages were, I think engineering wise,
architecturally wise, didn't make any sense. And that's just my recollection. >> Okay. And again, you don't remember which architect you spoke with, correct? >> I did not. >> Was it the architect that designed the new house? >> No.
[Music] >> Just give me a minute. May not have enough questions. When you uh purchased uh this house, do you recall doing any due diligence to
determine whether the subject neighborhood is located in a historic district? >> No. All right. Nothing further. Thank you. >> Any other questions from the public for this witness? Please
can you go up to the stand and uh state your name and address if you have any questions? >> Hi, my name is Richard Smith. >> Can you speak a little closer to the microphone? That's or raise it up a little bit. >> Thank you. >> It's Richard Smith 44 Schoolhouse right
across the street. Um there was uh when I look at the maps that they're There was we there was discussion of how wide the road is. The road was established as a 66 foot road in the late 1700s.
>> So this is the time to ask Mr. Piccolo questions based on his testimony. >> Oh, okay. All right. >> Do you have any questions of him or did you want to make statements? >> No, I have no questions. >> Okay. That that period will come later with the chair's permission public comment period. Yes. Okay.
Okay, no more question from the public. Okay, lot a quick if I might redirect. >> Okay, >> Mr. Piccolo, um, are you maintaining the same curb cut driveway entrance from the
exist from the house that you bought to the house that you're building? >> Yes. And um is the location of the driveway in part the reason why your you placed your new house in the same area as the old house?
>> Yes. >> And by um placing No further questions. >> Yes, Mr. Simon, >> Mr. Mr. Piccolo, the location of the driveway off of Schoolhouse Lane is
exactly the same as at the time when it was servicing the house that was on the lot when you purchased it. Correct. >> Correct. And the difference or if you recall and I'm referring to sheet three of three on the applicants
plan Nancy last dated October 1st >> October 1st >> October 1st 2025 the difference is that um the driveway came from its current location came kind
of straight up. Correct. No, >> no, >> no. >> And didn't go into a a turnaround? >> No. Went into a turnaround where my front current garages are. That was the orientation of the old house. That's where the front door was. They had a
turnaround that went right around circular to the left side of the house. That's where the front door was. >> Right. So, so the house that was on the property uh was partially to located to the right or to the east of the house
that's currently located on the property. Correct. >> I don't know where the location of the old house was, but I'm telling you that the driveway had the same cut from the road went up. Part of the driveway went into the garages that are straight ahead where my front door is now. And then the
driveway also continued up to the left, did a turn around where the front door was. That was the existing driveway. >> And is there a reason why, talking about the driveway, why the house wasn't
designed whereby the garages weren't on the east side of the property as opposed to the west side of the property. >> That's just where the architecture and the engineers designed it. And if it saved me money not relocating the entire driveway, I was absolutely all for it.
>> Nothing further. Thank you. >> Next witness. >> Uh if we could have a a a short break, I want to verify the the we have the right exhibits. Just a fivem minute break >> and I will call my next witness which
will be the engineer. >> Okay. Yes. We'll take short five minute break on please. So, do we need to call roll again or are we outside? I think we're all here. Okay. I would uh
like to announce that we have several other items for uh business that we have to get to tonight. So, I am going to uh try hard to cut off any more cut off the testimony and this hearing at 9:30 and we may so we may have to get to carry
it, but we have business after this. Um that will take probably about a half an hour that we'd like to conclude. So, uh we will have a fairly hard stop at 9:30. We'll >> finish any questions that are, you know, going on at 9:30, but we will entertain
no more testimony or questions after 9:30. So, thank you Miss Lville. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. At this time, I would like to call Kirsten Oststerorn, who is our uh who prepared the subdivision plan. Um, Miss Ostster,
you've previously been sworn. >> Yes. >> Uh, and would you state your name, address, uh, for the record, please? >> Kirstson Austorn, O S T R K O R N 42 Central A Midland Park, New Jersey from Osterorn.
>> Thank you. Um and you prepared the uh minor subdivision plan that is exhibited here uh revised to October 1, 2025. Yes. Correct. Yep. >> Would you like to uh please >> I'm sorry. You're you're a uh yes.
>> You're an engineer licensed in the state of New Jersey. >> Yes. >> Your license remains a good standing. >> Yes. Yes, I'm going to be >> testify as an expert before various land use boards in the state of New Jersey and been accepted as an expert in the field of civil engineering before same >> and land surveying >> and land surveying and you're seeking to
be uh uh uh by applicants council you're seeking to uh be accepted as an expert in both fields. Yes. Land surveying and engineering. Yes. Mr. Simon, any objection to uh Miss Oscar being accepted as an expert by this board in both practice areas? Um, not terms of
being qualified to provide testimony as an engineer license. >> Okay, that's all I was asking at this point. So, over to the chairman. >> Okay, thank you. You may proceed. We'll accept your qualifications. Go. >> Sorry, we just rolled right into it. >> Yeah. >> Okay.
>> Uh, can we go to sheet two, please? I'm used to having a board in front of me. Okay. Um, so the current property lot 3501, lot six is 35 schoolhouse lane. >> By the way, this is sheet two of exhibit A1, right? >> Yes.
>> Okay. And that's the site plan that was at subdivision plan, excuse me, October one last bike, correct? >> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Um, for the purposes of when I talk north is to the top of the page. South is at schoolhouse lane. Um under existing conditions uh from at the
time that the survey was done for the deed that was provided from the research that we had had the lot was 4 4.51 acres 196,436 ft. Um we had found evidence that showed
on both sides of the property iron pipes um control in the back for iron pipes along schoolhouse lane that showed there was sub there was right-of-way dedications done at some point but at this time for this property from the the
title that was provided to us after the purchase uh there was no dedication that was done for the property at that time. Under existing conditions, the property slopes to Schoolhouse Lane from the rear left corner to the rear
right corner. As you can see from the the dash lines, the existing general contours that are there. Um, at the time of the survey, we were brought in after um, Mr. Po had bought the property. um pursuant to the start of the construction of the house, you can see
at the time of this survey of where we have the existing drive going in where the placement of the house that was under construction uh lies. Um I noted under which is hard to see on these plans, but I tried to put it in big under the permit numbers that were for
the house under construction. Uh if we can I did note and I I do a because it was noted that the the shed got left off. I had it on there and for some reason it just was a layer. There's a CAD layer control issue, but when we were out there that shed was there. That's um out up in this corner over
here. >> I'm sorry. Up in this. >> No, I'm sorry. The northeast corner of the property. >> I was going to say speak directionally. Thanks. >> I know. Sorry about that. Northeast corner. Uh if we go to sheet three, please. Magic.
Uh under proposed conditions, we're proposing lots. 1 and 6.02. Um, as you we can see on the property that the the property in general originally is kind of like a parallelogram. It's not at right angles to schoolhouse lane. It um
it bends off to the left to the northwest. Under proposed conditions, we are noting the area of the 20 foot 25 foot deed to dedication that would go to the town that corresponds with the 50ft right ofway that lines up with work that
was done on both sides of the property as well based on the evidence that we did find in the field. So under proposed conditions, the way we established the proposed subdivision line was to ensure that the lot width at schoolhouse lane complied with the 300 ft lot with
requirement. Lot 6.02 is uh where are my numbers? >> 30 sorry 302.4t and lot 6.0 no 6.01 01 is 302.4 and 6.02 is 301 ft
in lot width at the right of way. The variances that were mentioned previously was at the setback line and then at 40 ft past the setback line and those were some of the variances that um uh the planner will be testifying to uh later.
Under these conditions, we show more to the proposed dwelling that was under construction. Um, and working the driveway. The placement of the house, as noted previously, was the front door was to the southwest side of the dwelling,
which then it was speaking to of the pool and um other features that were at the rear of the dwelling, which is more on the north side of the page. Under proposed conditions with the construction of the house, we have the the front door facing schoolhouse lane with a side entry garage. Before it was
a front entry garage, so we maintained the existing curb cut in schoolhouse lane and we sweep the driveway over slightly in order to have a nice side entry garage. um with the grading conditions of the property, the way we set the elevations of the house, working
off of um the top of foundation that we had to work with, we were able to design a pool centered off the back of the house. We cut into the northwest side a little bit in the slope and on the uh southeast side of the house. Uh we're doing a little bit of fill. We were able
to then show the drainage system and the septic that all were part of the construction documents that fell under the building permit. So everything that's shown on lot 6.01 matches to the building permit package that permitted
him permitted the applicant to be building the single family dwelling as part of the subdivision. Then on the right side of the property on the norththeast side, we took a similar size structure. We we kept it as a box. We didn't have as many um details for porch
and covered patios or anything out in the backyard and did a same sweeping type of driveway entrance to the left for a side entry garage. I know it was mentioned about the potential of flipping the driveway to the right side. Ultimately, a building permit and lot
grading permit uh for the engineer to review would have to be designed and approved. at this point looking at the grading of the lot. If we go to the right side, you're probably more looking at a garage under type of situation. I still think the left side makes sense. It keeps the septic systems separate.
Both properties um have well water. Um so everything would have been looked at to make sure everything's within proximity of the neighboring properties and that the the septics can comply uh with requirements from the health department. on that side. I know it was
spoken to of looking to see some sort of renderings or or diagrams of the building. It was looked at as just being a basic two family um a simple uh size that complies with all bulk requirements. While we have the variances for lot area
and lot width at the the setback lines and then what was brought into was uh the density aspect of one single family per three acres. the rest of the bulk requirements are not being exacerbated that the size of the building that is there would comply with all required
front yard setback rear yard um requirements coverages for both building coverage and impervious coverage would all comply with if approved for the subdivision when that lot 6.02 02 is built upon and a building permit would
be um submitted to the town, it would be the conditions of complying with those bulk requirements. If someone were to seek late or any other type of um variance being requested, they'd be back in front. But the intent is that everything does comply and and fit and
match of two similar size properties um two similar developed looking properties. Uh we were looking to keep the existing landscaping that's along schoolhouse lane. Aside from introducing the one curb cut for lot 6.02, all of the existing trees that uh create
a buffer on both the east and north and west side uh is a tree road to all the surrounding properties um from being out there and still being down at schoolhouse lane of how the property does slope up. It's not um an overbuilt in that sense and the planner will be
able to speak more to that of building two what I would view as decent size homes that fit the lots in terms of uh all of the bulk requirements that are being requested. We do understand that we have the variances
for the lot area and lot widths. Um but at the end of the day uh the the houses are um in proportion to the lot sizes being proposed. With respect to utilities, drainage would be provided on both properties that meets the requirements to septic
and well. There would be septic and well for each property as well. Um then I think that's it. As I'm looking at the plan, do you have specifics? I I have a couple of questions. Um did you have an
opportunity to calculate the u the combined building coverage of lot uh 601 and proposed lot 602? >> So the the building coverage separately for each lot. So 6.0 uh 6.01 is 4.4% where
10%'s permitted. So it's 38 3,833 ft. Uh total impervious coverage is at 15.8% 8% where 25% is permitted. So the proposed impervious for 6.01 is 13,771. It's outlined in the chart on the plan
as well. For lot 6.02, we proposed a building coverage of 3,400 where so that's 3.4% where 10%'s permitted and our proposed imperous coverage is 10,18 square ft. Uh which is 10% we're 25.
When we look at the lot as if it was all together for the coverages, the combined is 7,233 ft for building coverage where 13,680 is permitted. So for the lots together, even if you were to look at all the
coverages the size of a building, that could be the two separately still comply with the building coverage. And similarly for imperous coverage the proposed together is 23,789 square feet where 32,670
is permitted um on the lots together. So from a percentage type of speaking both lots are approximately half of what's permitted on the 3acre lot from building coverage and for impervious they're about twothirds of what's permitted for
those the lots that are permitted in the zone. So, which the planner will be able to speak to more of um the size and appropriateness of the the impervious coverage and building coverage on the lots.
>> So, you testified that the uh lot frontage for proposed lot 601 and 602 each exceed 300 ft. Is that correct? At the at the at schoolhouse lane. >> Yes. At this at the dedicated 25 foot wide right of way lane. They both com
they are both over 300 linear feet >> and that is the requirement for a threeacre lot. Is that correct? >> And with respect to the front yard setback the lot the interior lot width both in two spots uh the front setback
>> and the 40 ft beyond the front setback. First would you indicate where those lines are on the plan and Sure. Um I'll make sure I say this good. So the on the southeast side of the page, the bottom of the page is the schoolhouse lane
right of way. Just north of that at the setback line, there is a line that uh goes across from west to east. And then another 40 ft beyond that is another line that goes from west to east to give those dimensions that are on the plan. >> And both of those interior lot with
lines are um with respect to lot 601, the house is behind both of those lines. Is that correct? >> Yes. >> And um the uh widths of those two lines are interior lot widths. Wait, my numbers.
[Applause] Sorry. Sorry. Okay. at the for lot 6.01 at the front yard setback is 287.1
ft where the 300 ft's required and 40 ft beyond that is 281 ft for lot 6.02 at the front yard setback line is 270 ft and 40 ft 40 ft beyond that is 257.6 six.
>> And the uh requirement for a lot width for a threeacre lot is >> 300 >> 300 feet. So each of those two lines on those two lots is slightly short of the required 300 ft. >> Yes. >> Um and what is the overall shape of the
lot? >> A parallelogram. >> A parallelogram or a trapezoid? >> Trapezoid parallel. >> Oh my geometry class. They are not a it's not a rectangle perfect 90° shaped lot. So as the as the line gets set back
further and meeting it was getting smaller as you go back the the rear side of the property to the north is less in width than the front of the property. Uh we do meet the lot depth requirements which gave us our lot areas. Um actually are the lot is the lot depth even higher
than uh and that's by how much? >> A threeacre lot requires a lot depth of what? Got a lot of numbers here. Hold on. >> Sorry. We have an uh lot depth is supposed to be 300 ft and we have an average lot
depth. The existing lots 423 feet. Lot 6.01 is 351 feet and 6.02 is 456 feet. So over the 300 foot lot depth requirement. Okay. Thank you.
Um I think that would be Are you >> I'm good. It was all technical fun stuff. >> Yes. All right. So, um that's all my questions. >> Any questions from the from the board?
Yes. >> Um I'm not sure if this is the right um witness to ask this out, but I'm uh I'd like to refer to page one of the package that was sent to us. >> Sheet one.
>> Yeah. and specifically the zoning map. >> Specifically the zoning map which is at the bottom of the page. Can you comment Can you comment on the neighboring lots uh that front schoolhouse lane um that are adjacent to this subject
property. >> Is is this a question that we better directed to the planner? >> Do you have a planner coming? No, I said you do have a plan. Probably not tonight, though, because we're going to get cut off. But what I is there more to you? I don't know what the Didn't finish the question. You just
>> No, that was my question. >> Uh there are several properties along Schoolhouse Lane. >> Yeah. >> That are um of interest to me. I was hoping someone could comment on them relative to this subject. >> I think that is more the planner. I'm
sorry. >> Hold that question. Any other questions from the board? >> Just quick rabbits. >> Thank you for your testimony. Um you mentioned um being brought into this project. What when were we brought into
this project? >> After the applicant had bought the property. Uh they had bought it from my understanding without a survey. So I came in initially to do the survey um actually by the attorney. So, you were brought in to work on the home
that's being built currently, or you were you brought in to work on the subdivision? >> The subdivision wasn't a conversation when I was first brought in. It was can you do a survey of our property was the beginning parts of everything.
>> Okay. And how soon after that were you asked to work on the subdivision? >> Um, hold on. So it's 20 these dated probably a year my because
my survey was March of 2024 was my initial survey and then uh we came back later that year after but the the subdivision I I don't know the exact dates but I it was later after the survey portion happened first.
>> Okay. And so how and how long have you been working on this particular part of the project, the subdivision? >> Um, so I would say since March >> of this year. >> Yeah. >> Thank you. >> I just So you were brought on
to do survey of the existing property. Is that for the in order to get the permits for the construction of the new one? >> Yes. >> Okay. Okay. That's any other questions board professionals.
>> Okay. Um just just tie a bow on it. It's trapezoid, not a parallelogram because >> Thank you. >> because because they're not parallel >> angles, >> right?
>> And as proposed. Um, can can you tie a bow on a top? >> Can you have to do it on the short top side is the proper place to put it. So, uh, bit of confirmation on your testimony. The outbound
uh, survey is, uh, under your PLS originally from April 2024 and then revised through with the plan date. >> Yes. Um and so then for recordation act then you're the proposing surveyor of the subdivision on the same boundary.
Correct. >> Yes. >> Um there's evidence found in the front uh the front pins on the west and east side of the property. Um are are those
coincident to the proposed rightaway dedication or is there an offset to that proposed? know they lined up with the 25 ft. >> Uh when we did the survey in a March,
April of 2024, I was only provided the deed at the time, which is why it went to the center line of road. >> Okay. >> And then subsequent from the conversations we had in the past couple months, we requested title searches of neighboring properties on the subject
property which led to that our proposed dedication. So in in that additional effort the property was fieldlo to that evidence. So you're confident on the boundary as proposed as shown.
>> Yes. I mean even when we did it last year I was confident where it was. We showed that all the evidence we found. We just had called the deed to the center line of road because that was the only documentation we were provided at the time of the survey. >> Okay. And so there's a third pin in the
northwest corner. Yes. Of the existing property. >> From those three pins that I referenced, >> you find it appropriate to be able to field locate any proposed subdivision that's approved without additional modification? >> Yes.
>> Okay. Um you were the engineer of record for the lock rating approval as well on the existing zone. >> Yes. >> Um so you have accurate files as to the proposed disturbances and then for the
as build of what would be disturbance on the lot. >> Yes. Um, would you agree that with the proposed subdivision after February of 2004,
all future improvements to the parent lot, so proposed 601 and 602 would be summarally against the major development standards for lot disturbance and impervious coverage.
>> Can you repeat that again? >> So, Sorry. >> Since the subdivision is to a lot created prior to 2004, the creation of the storm water >> uh rules. Yes. And Jack 78, >> that
the total cumulative disturbance of both lots would be these um the triggering points for a major development standard on future development of this parcel. So in other words, when lot 6.02 O2 is
constructed. It will have the balance of the one acre threshold already disturbed for the existing dwelling and then the the balance of the quarter acre threshold from
what is 13771 on proposed lot 601 minus the 8,720 of the ex prior existing conditions >> I believe but I don't also O have the numbers
>> exactly the I mean I'd have to I would when it understanding we're coming back I mean I'd pull up the lot grading all those numbers along with the proposed for the sub but I don't want to speak to numbers >> so I'm confident I'm confident that the original lot rating was a minor
development on the existing parent lot. >> Yes. And there will be a threshold cumulatively for future development of lot 6.02 that will take into consideration the improvements on
the lot as it exists today as the dwelling under construction >> to not trigger a major development. >> To not trigger a major development >> that would be the what what many of us call a creeping major development. >> Yes. Yes. >> Okay. Um, and you're comfortable with that for
any proposed plans at a future date on lot 6.02 for lot. >> Yes, there would be they I try very hard with my clients never to trigger major development because I don't want to do those. >> Okay. >> So, I know we had looked at the numbers.
I just don't want to speak to hard numbers. No, but yeah, you're you agree it's a minor development as constructed through the permits today >> and that the thresholds will be cumulatively >> less than an acre, less than a quarter acre increase.
>> Thanks. >> Yes. Um and the existing driveway uh for the orientation of the existing home utilized what appears to be maybe the first 30% or so of the existing alignment to
maintain to maintain the um the sight triangle through the existing street trees. Yes. If can you go to show sheet two? I don't know who's listening to me when
I ask that question. Um yeah, we can see on on the the page where on the schoolhouse where the um curb cut is um and how it does have more of a straight entry to where the circular drive is versus if we go to
sheet two, it starts to curve to the left more for the side entry garage or where you can see that located. But I would say um as the engineer had noted twothirds of it coming up 50% to twothirds um coming up from schoolhouse
are maintaining the existing before it starts to sweep to the left in order to get to the side entry garage that's on the west side of the dwelling. >> That allowed you to minimize the total disturbance on the original construction of the dwelling that's there now.
>> Yes. a lot of the existing dwelling. I mean, for the for having the pages in in front of you that you can see, there are some shaded lines behind the existing dwelling where you can see where the circular portion of the driveway was that is underneath the existing
dwelling. So, a lot of the impervious um offset each other, which was why we were trying not to be increasing the impervious by more uh with the the placement of the new dwelling. [Applause] That's okay.
Have you decided yet? >> No, I I think Go ahead. >> You have no >> I think those comments are mostly for the planner, but >> Oh, okay. >> All right. >> There weren't the I just know I just always like as we all do like to make sure all the reports are covered. I know
there were environmental commission reports. I don't know if uh I if the engineer was probably best suited as between the engineering plan, but uh did the applicant uh have an opportunity to review the July 21
Environmental Commission report and the recommendations contained therein and can you address those? Are there any recommendations made by the commission that you would stipulate to as conditions of approval? Should the board
grant approval or not? And again, the recommendations >> um decide what are conditions. The board will ultimately decide what uh what the conditions of approval if there
will be an approval are. >> So you're referring to the environmental commission report dated July 21st. >> That's it. >> And the third So the first two bullet points deal with um recitation of the
facts related to the property. Uh and those two those >> the recommendations start on the second page. the recommendations. But on the first page, the third bullet indicates no wetlands or flood planes. Is that correct? >> Yes.
>> Um the property is covered primarily in maintained grass with mature evergreen trees, no visible erosion. Is that correct? >> Yes. >> The plans, let's see, >> I know I see the I don't have any issues with the recommendations. I mean, the
recommendations speak to that all plants should comply with the do not plant list, correct? >> And storm water management given the new house, they're expected um that all plans have a they're going to be have a proposed seepage pits and they're going to go through the same lot grading permit that would get approved by uh the
engineer as well. You could on behalf of the applicant are are you stipulating to those recommendations as conditions of approval? Should the board grant approval? >> Yes. >> Then there's general recommendations at the bottom of page two.
>> Rooftop solar lighting dark sky compliance. I don't know of any rooftop solar at this time for the lighting. Um, it would comply with the dark sky. I mean, my understanding of any residential houses that I work with have um, you know,
lights at the garage doors and the front doors if they have some flood lights that would be on timers in the back just for safety. Like I I mean, I have that at my house too, but it would comply with the dark sky. To my knowledge, there's no intention of
solar panels. So, there was, they'd have to comply with the state >> for the recommendations on the environmental commission. The uh the fire department review had no questions or comments dated June 25th and June 25th uh site uh inspection
committee had no questions or comments. And I think the uh planners reports will be addressed by the planner. I have nothing further. Thank >> any more questions from the board.
>> Mr. Simon, do you have any questions for this question? [Applause] [Music] houses. Good evening. Um, so I have a bunch of questions, but let me
start with sheet two of three. Please pull it up. Thanks. So, just so I understand. So, I'm looking at your the um the first note and and by the way, it's your understanding based
on the deed that closing on this property took place about December 1st of 2023. Correct. >> I don't I I don't have the date of that. >> What's that? Bill just gave us the deed tonight and that's what it looked like
that the the deed was delivered on December 1st, 2023. Does that sound about right? if you know. >> Sure. I don't know. I I don't I can >> Okay. And then um it states here that a survey was done dated uh April 13th,
2024. So, prior to closing, you were not contacted to to um create a survey of the property. Correct. >> Correct. >> You're not aware of any other surveyor that was uh contacted to create a survey of the property. Correct. >> Correct. And so when it states that
survey um by Amlin and Auststerorn, that's your company. >> Yes. >> Okay. Dated April 13th, 2024. Um when were you originally contacted to create a survey that ultimately was dated April
13th of 2024? >> I don't know the email date off the top of my head that I was contacted. It was prior to April 13th. Do do you have any recollection as we stand here tonight approximately what month you were first contacted? >> March.
>> March. So approximately three months give or take after 4 months after the closing you were contacted and you were you were asked to create just a a meets and bound survey of the property. >> Boundary and topographic survey. >> Boundary and topographic survey. Yes.
Okay. And um that required you to go out and and uh review the property and take some shots of the property to determine topography. >> Yes. >> And the survey that was submitted um on
sheet two of three, that's not a survey dated April 13, 2024. Correct? >> No. Have you submitted to the board the survey that you created dated April 13,
2024 and that you refer to on sheets two of three? >> I I don't Nancy I don't know if that was actually >> oh sorry I um the documentation that I provided to the attorney for submission
was this three sheet set. didn't give a separate document of my April 20 April 13, 2024 survey. >> Okay. So, you've never provided to Miss Lenville or to the board the survey that you refer to in note one on sheet two of
three dated April 13, 2024. Correct. >> Correct. >> Okay. And with regard to um note number three uh dwelling construction pursuant to building permit number 25-
000053 um were you um retained to assist in um preparing an application for building permit for this property? Yes.
>> And when were you first um retained to work on an application for building permit for this property? >> It's the end of Well, we did this survey in March of 2024.
I think it was the fall when we started the process for the plot plan when I got architectural plans and then the applicant came and said if I could satisfy the lock grading because I'm trying to figure out when they submitted because this permit was issued in 2025.
It was earlier this year, but I would I didn't bring all my contracts with me, but I'm going off of memory now of it was the end of last year when I got architectural plans for the job. It end of last year, the end of 2024. >> Yeah. >> Okay. And who did you receive
architectural plans from? >> Do you recall the architect on the project? >> No, but she one references the architect. >> I'm sorry. >> I think she one references the architect. I don't recall his name off the top of my head.
I don't see a reference to an architect, but I may have missed it. Can you check since these are your plans? If you don't mind, >> I It's blurry on the screen. >> You want to look at mine? Your
>> No, you have the hard copies. >> They might not have been on this plan. They were on the plot plan. >> Yeah, thanks. >> No, these didn't refer to an architect. The plot plans that were subject to the building permit number referred to the
architects, but I I deal with a lot of architects on a daily basis, so I don't have the name off the top of my head. Cool. >> And [Music] when you made the application or when you assisted in the application for the
building permit, um what how did you participate in that project? I was given a footprint of a house by the architect and it was looked at from the zoning perspective of conversations
of where they wanted to be placed and how we would change the driveway and >> and and you were uh part of that discussion. >> Yes. >> Okay. And you reviewed the zoning ordinance at the time as part of that discussion? >> Yes, we did an initial zoning chart for the lot. Right. And then when you did
the initial zoning chart for the lot and you did the analysis, did you also contemplate at the time the possible subdivision of this property? >> I did not contemplate that. >> Okay. So all the zoning information that
you provided that led to the issuance of a building permit that you identify on sheet two of three. You did not at any time contemplate what the zoning of the property would be for either of what's
now proposed lot 6.01 and 6.02 should a subdivision take place? >> No. And looking at sheet two of and and by the way, how is it determined that the house
that currently exists uh was cited in that location as opposed to any other location on the lot? >> I was guided by the applicant and what he wanted. And do you know why the
applicant wanted the house to be to the uh we'll call it the northwest or or yeah the west of where the existing house was. The conversations we had were mainly about the impervious coverage of
trying to because we were considering the um major development and I I I had said I don't want your increase to be and when he talked about potentially a future pool and how it was being cited on the site of facing and the pool
behind it and we knew the pool needed to meet the rear yard setback requirement of 100 ft. it pulled the house forward more and it overlaid into the driveway which then I said, "Oh, that's good because the impervious can offset each
other." Uh, we originally had the house back a little bit further, but then when we had discussed a conceptual pool, I said, "Well, that's going to be a variance because it's over the rear yard setback line." So, then we pulled the house forward more. At at the time that
you're having these conversations, was it contemplated that the existing pool on the property would be removed? >> Yes. And when you were having those conversations with regard to impervious coverage, um
why why were you worried about impervious coverage on this uh lot that's 4 acres and change >> for one house? >> For the size of the drainage system that he'd have to put in for the seepage pits, it's based on your increase in
coverage. So if you increase by more, he'd have to put multiple seepage pits in. >> So you're talking about uh an add you were concerned about an additional one acre of disturbance or quarter of acre quarter acre of additional impervious coverage. >> No, it was just that the increase in
coverage overall. So if he only increases coverage by a th000 square feet, he only has to size the system for X amount. If we increase it by two or three thousand by keeping and we're increasing it by more the drainage system he has to put in for a single
family home is larger which would then not entail just collecting the house water. We would have to then try to collect driveway water and other things to offset just the balance of what that increase was. We were trying to keep it at the house roof area so it it balanced
out. >> And you have on your plan building coverage of what is it 3833 for lot 6.01 and 3400 for 6.02. >> Yes.
And that's assuming that's a ground floor, correct? >> Yes. >> So, if these houses are are two-story homes, is it fair to say that the square footage would approximately double from
what that building coverage number is? >> Well, the applicant's house is a one-story home, so it's not doubling. the the conceptual plan of a 3,400 ft home. Yes. Could be >> doubled. >> Could be two story
>> 6,800 potentially. Two story. >> Mhm. >> Okay. And when you uh you participated uh in the in the permits for for the demo and you did some some grading there was there
any steep slope disturbance at that time? >> Not that got brought up by the town with our permitting. why we stayed within um the disturbed area with the demo and and kept everything in the general area that was already disturbed.
>> You mentioned during your your testimony about um the the creation of this lot. You're aware that this Are you aware that this lot was created by subdivision? >> The the the original lot >> mother lot. Yes.
>> No. >> Okay. Did you do any in uh investigation as to the history of how this lot was approved or created for purposes of of meets and bounds or otherwise?
>> No. And when you participated in the create, so you you first worked on the subdivision for this property after this home was being constructed. That was the first time a subdivision was discussed. >> Yes.
>> And at the time, did you review the ordinance to determine the number of variances that would be required for such a subdivision application? My initial review was uh just with the lot area and the lot width and it was
working with the attorney that we had found out the other variances with the the setback um at the setback line the 40 ft behind it. So the initial assessment was just an area variance but I wasn't brought in as an initial
planner to go deep dive the ordinance. Um, have you since done a further deep dive of the ordinance to determine the number of variances required as reflected in your plans? >> I have not. >> So, the
your zoning table on the third page that identifies um a bunch of variances that that didn't come from you, that came from someone else. >> That was a team effort with all the professionals on the team.
And with regard to the existing features um that remain, you agree that the
existing pool that was since removed, that was formally located at least partially on what's now lot 6.02. 02. Correct. >> Yes. >> And the property as originally um constructed
um if the if the subdivision were created with the original house remaining, that would result in a setback for that house. Correct. Required setback based on where the the uh subdivision lines located. >> The variance for the house. Yes.
>> Yes. And you're on page one of three. Um, you don't show all the properties within 200 feet of this property, do you? >> I No, I realized that when I was pulling out the tax maps, it doesn't have the
ones across the street on it because I have them here with me now. But >> Right. and and the the ordinance requires you to show all um structures within and h and homes w and buildings, excuse me, within 200 feet of this property and that has not been shown on
these plans. Correct. >> Correct. >> And um you also show on your plans uh property is within 200 ft of not just lot six but also lot five. You see that? And and and why is that?
>> There's a drive there's a a driveway that runs along >> Can you I'm sorry. Can you show me on the plan which >> Sorry. On sheet one, >> you Yeah. You want to show on sheet one? Okay. >> I can show sheet one. >> On the top of the the zoning map, you
can see a dash line of a a driveway that ends up coming through to lot five that's behind it. Um, >> you mean to to the uh west of this lot? >> Yes. To the west of the lot and then it goes to the north of the lot. >> Right.
>> So, it was a conversation of wanting to to be extra prudent in and notifying just because of their access that comes next to us and behind the subject property of including them in the notification to make sure we captured
everything. Does anyone with AC with rights to that access have any rights relating to lot six?
>> Not that I know of. Does the owner of lot six have any rights visav that access that you just identified on lot five?
>> Not that I know of. and your subdivision map doesn't show any of the survey markers located on the property. Correct. >> The property corners we found.
>> Yes, >> sheet two does. >> They do. >> If it got knocked off sheet three, that was not intentional. Sheet two shows the iron pipes we found to the southwest and southeast and the northwest corner. It just says it's a
circle that says IP. So the so the IP and and did you put in those iron pipes? >> No. >> Do you know who put those iron pipes in? >> No. I can check our file to see if they
were capped with a name on it. Um when we show them as symbols on our plan, we just mark them with an IP. Uh but I can I can check the point file to see if there was a cap with a name to it. and and the the iron the IPS I'm looking at sheet two of three. They're located to
the north of these trees that you're proposing. Correct. >> Those are existing trees. >> Existing trees. So they're located to the north of the existing trees. Correct. >> Yes. So, is it your uh position that those trees
are nevertheless located on the subject property >> under the current deed description? Yes. After a right of way dedication, they will be in the right of way of owned by Morris Township. >> Okay. And if they're going to be owned in the right of way owned by Morris
Township, is Morris Township going to be presumably maintaining those? depends on how the rightway dedication is worded. >> You're not showing any properties um as questioned by Miss Murphy actually across from schoolhouse lane, right? On
this on any sheet that you've submitted, correct? >> No. >> And are there any um utility or other easements that impact this property? Not that we have from our the title search I was provided. Okay. >> And the title search that you were provided that was provided by the owner
of the property at the time you purchased the property. >> No, we requested it after the last meeting where questions were brought up about the right of way line that I had a deed search done. >> You had a deed search done >> by a title company? Yes. >> Okay. So the deed search just ran deeds
from Was it a 120ear search? >> No. If it was not 120 year search, how many years search did you run? >> 60. Okay. >> So, prior to
presumably 1960 when you showed the when you showed the first deed, um you don't know the history of the property before then, correct? >> Not that I have in front of me. >> Okay. And you're not aware of the road return on Schoolhouse Lane
prior to to 1960 either, correct? to determine the right of way in the county records. The original deed had a reference to a map which had referred to it as the 66 foot right ofway and it talked of the the road maps and when this was brought up that's why we did
the deed search and then it showed and some of the history on some of the other neighboring properties that we did searches on to justify and support that it is a 50ft right ofway which is what the tax maps have on record. A couple lots down, we
had found a right-of-way dedication that was done for 25 feet, which supports a 50 foot right ofway, not a 66 foot right of way. >> And you know those right-of-way dedications were were correctly done, especially when the the the deed book showed that it's actually a 66 foot
right of way >> and you didn't search prior to 1960. >> Okay. Um, you don't show any water courses within 200 ft of this property. Correct.
>> Correct. [Music] >> And this property is located in the RA130 zone, correct? >> Yes. And there's property surrounding it located in the OSGU zone
>> to the east. >> To the east. Um what about to the north? Did you do any because you haven't provided a a property or a zoning area map. Um are you aware to the extent to which the properties in the surrounding area
whether it's 200 feet or 500 feet from this property are located in the RA130 or the OSGU zone. I believe this fell under the criteria of the planner that has exhibits to show with their testimony about the surrounding neighborhood. So the um
was there anything I'm and I apologize for not asking this before the plot plan that you submitted to the town. There is no reference on there to any aspect of this subdivision plan.
>> No. Um, and on sheets two and on sheet three, you show to the north and to the east all these um squiggly lines, but you don't do you haven't shown any type
of evaluation of number of trees, type of trees, canopies, drip lines, etc. Correct. >> The trees that we located on the property are noted with the tree symbols. The squiggly line is the tree can the tree line that we located around
the property. >> So when you when when you look at the tree line on the property, how many trees are we talking about and where are they located? >> I don't have that information. It was not required. >> It wasn't required as part of what as part of the subdivision application.
>> It when we had our review letters and had our TCC meeting, it wasn't asked to locate all trees on property lines. Um, so the trees that are within the area that
you're identifying on sheet three of three to be located within the dedicated area that's going to be dedicated to the township. >> Mhm. >> Right. >> Yes. Sorry. >> And and what kind of trees are located there that you're depicting?
>> Evergreens. >> And how tall are they? >> I don't know. >> Okay. Have you done a survey of them in terms of drip line, canopy, root system? >> No, we located the center of the tree >> and it was shown as a symbol. >> Do you have any idea when they were
planted? >> No. And just to be clear, the on sheet three of three, lot 6.02, um, your twostory dwelling is conceptual, correct? >> Yes. >> Your disposal field is conceptual,
correct? >> Yes. >> Your grading is conceptual, correct? >> Yes. The the front walk is conceptual, correct? >> Yes. >> And the driveway is conceptual, correct? >> Yes. >> You show seepage pits or dry wells to
the east of the of the lot, I'm sorry, of the dwelling, correct? >> Yes. >> Okay. And have you done any um testing with related to those uh test pits? I'm sorry, to those dry
wells. Not those specific ones. >> Have you done testing with regard to the dry wells that are located on lot 6.01? >> Yes. >> And what kind of testing did you do?
>> The testing was done for both the septic and the drainage to get depth to groundwater and percolation rates. So we know that the systems both work >> and and those were submitted to the township. >> Yes. And
the topography of the site has changed since April 13th, 2024. Correct. >> Yes. >> And the topography has changed even since May 1st of 2025. Correct.
>> Yes. Okay. Um, have you shown um any you provided, excuse me, any plans that identify the current uh disturbance or topography of the site? >> No. Other than the
eight variances that have been identified to date, are you aware of any other variances based on your review of the ordinance? >> Not to my knowledge. >> Okay. And you haven't provided information to the board or any type of analysis to the topography of
surrounding properties within 200 feet of the site. Correct? >> No. >> And you haven't submitted um storm water calculations or drainage calculations for either lot 6.01, 6.02, or the commum
uh cumulative lot. Correct. >> 6.01 was smid as part of the building permit. >> I'm saying but is as 6.01 01. Has that drainage information been provided to this board? >> No. >> And no drainage information has been provided for 6.02, correct?
>> No. >> And no soil testing has been done in 6.02. Correct. >> Correct. [Music] Just give me a minute. So, is it I I I was just um
want to get clarification. Is it your testimony that you don't believe that cumulatively between lot 6.01 and 6.02 Now too there there will not be um greater than 1 acre
of total cumulative disturbance >> I believe so but I don't have the exact numbers to tell you a number and you also believe that cumulative cumulatively between 6.01 and 6.02 2.
There won't be more than a quarter of a quarter acre of an increase in imperous coverage. >> Yes. >> Okay. I have nothing further at this time. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> There questions from or any questions
from the public for this witness? Yeah. Name and address, please. Just for the record, >> Richard Smith, 44 school house, right across the street. >> M. Dr. Corn. Um,
you the initial survey was done with Did you Did you say that the initial survey was done with the deed that was given to you? No other data was acquired. >> At the time, my contract was to be provided by the homeowner, a deed that I did the survey off of. And you did a
serve it with one deed >> at the time. Yes. >> Were you didn't have concern for any issues that might be involved with the surrounding properties? >> No. >> Is that how you do all your service? >> No.
>> Okay. The rightway for this road was created in the late 1700s as a 66 ft road. I I've read it. Does that Does that not concern you that
you should have a >> your hands on the actual documents that create the right away >> going forward? We did and we tried to do the best due diligence of research we had into both the those right-of-way
maps and the others. >> Yeah. >> The only then questions I have of if it was a 66 right of way of the impact to both sides of the street, not just ours. And the other documentation we had found >> supported the 50 foot. understanding there was a history of a 66, but there
was only the one map that I read recently, but we had other documentation that supported the 50ft rightway. >> Okay. So, it when you found the additional deeds in the neighborhood that claimed a 50ft rightway,
could you do do you understand that that that a rightway that was created at 66 ft? Would you say that if somebody files a deed or dedicates 25 ft of rightway that that changes the 66 road to 50
foot? >> You understand? >> No, I'm trying to that if it was 66 ft. But then >> if it's a 66t road and somebody calls it 50 feet in the deed, does that make it 50 feet? >> No. So
>> it would always be 66 feet, right? to that point. But other evidence we found on the block and other deeds and right-of-way dedication supported a 50-foot >> is the reason I No, I should not. >> All right. There's
I just don't understand. Can you explain to me how you can ignore a 66ft road return? She I believe she you asked that and she answered it. They looked at the number >> know she thinks that. Okay. All right. >> No, she said they looked and other evidence supported the 50 foot.
>> A few other things. When you on your map you show the uh the dedication of like 25 ft. Is that and is that from the the the deed line that ran into the road somewhere? That's >> that just 25 ft over from the from the >> from we had the deed called to the
center line of road and then based on the evidence we found of where the it lined up exactly with where 25 ft understanding that the neighbors both to the south and the north the west and the east had a dedication done and we had
located the properties to the southwest that there was a dedication that was done as a 25 foot ride wideway. >> All right. So the 25 ft dedication eliminated the 66 ft right away. Is that what you're saying? >> That was my analysis.
>> I get it. Um now when you when you prepare the map, uh you you don't show the center of the road. You don't show the pavement and you don't show the right of way on the other side of the road. Um yet are you familiar with the
New Jersey administrative code to govern surveys? >> Yes. Okay. Are you aware that those are required in that? >> Yes. >> Okay. But you didn't show them. >> My published survey showed it that the referenced one. >> Okay. Now, are you also aware that if
you reference a survey on a pair a drawing, a separate drawing, a sign and sealed copy of that survey must be submitted to this board with the application. That's in the administrative code. >> Okay.
>> But you didn't do that. I didn't do the submission. >> Well, but the the regulations in the administrative code govern the practice of engineering and surveying, not lawyers. >> Okay. >> So, it tells me that that's a requirement that you have to make sure
it's done. If you if a lawyer wants it down here, that's pretty okay. But you have to make sure it goes. >> Okay. So, um, now if I knew where the rightway, if I knew where the pavement was, I could tell you where a rightaway is because it's 33 ft or 25 ft or whatever
you say from the center of that road, the physical center of it. We're talking about a road that was established >> 200 years ago. >> Do you have a question? >> Oh, yeah. Yeah, I do. Sorry. Jeopardy. Um, so the I think I don't know how far that that
rightaway line that you're showing here is actually from the center of the road. Can you tell me how far it is from the center of the pavement? >> I can measure. The only other comment I would end up having back to that is that sometimes roads aren't actually centered
in right of ways. My street that I live in, the road is off off centered. It's not actually where >> Well, when you're talking >> the center pavement is >> when you're talking about an ancient road, aren't you bound to use the center line of the road unless you have firm evidence to go elsewhere?
>> Sure. Go. >> The pavement to pavement is 20 ft and I show where the property line is at 9 ft >> from where?
from the curb. >> So, it's a foot off center based on I made the decision based on all the iron pipes and stuff we found along the block. >> Okay. >> And what are you looking at there that shows the actual other side of the pavement?
What map are you looking at when you're scaling the central line off? >> My sheet sheet two and three. >> Where's the other side of the rightway? Where's the other side of the pavement on that sheet? Can you show me? There's the two concrete curbs. I just took a measurement right here. I'm sorry. On
the norththeast side of the property between the curb lines, >> I went over to the north the east where it says concrete curb. >> Yes. Those uh evergreen trees in the front, are they actually located or did somebody
just like stamp? >> No, we located >> actually located the trunks >> located. >> Okay. >> Are you familiar with the recordation act? >> Say it again. >> The recordation >> recordation act. the recording law that that governs the practice of
surveying and preparation of subdivisions. >> Not off the top of my head. I >> had to know it in order to get my license and I took an exam, but I don't read it on a daily basis. >> How long have you been licensed? >> Since 2011.
>> Okay. This law passed in 2012. So there's a lot of requirements from that in that document that you haven't met. Do you intend to meet them before that you complete this project? Like the
monumentation, actual road monuments have to be set on this property? >> Yes. >> Okay. And that are you aware that what you should be you're going to need to read it because it's it's required to be on this map before it's submitted to this town.
Okay. I think I think if if a map came back that wall that met the qualifications of the acts and this and the code um then it would be much easier to analyze your submission. I'm not I don't speak to the merits of of subdivision.
>> That's you're dring into comment now. We can do that at the end if you have any more questions. That's fine. I'm just looking for I just like to see a complete application so it can be reviewed by the neighbors that >> are concerned. Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> Miss Lville, do you want to respond to any of these? >> If I may, I have one quick um redirect question. >> Did we confirm there are other members of the public? >> Oh, I'm sorry. >> Oh, I'm sorry. There other me. Yes. Yeah. Other members of the public
>> and then Okay. Since we've passed the 9:30 time now, I want to complete >> closing to members of the public asking questions >> asking questions and we'll complete I hope we'll complete with this witness and then we'll >> redirect Yeah. redirect and but that we'll we will go through whatever we have to with this witness to finish.
>> Uh very quick, Mr. Chairman, if uh the exhibit for >> I can't hear you. If the exhibit for um t tax map and historic could be brought up please >> this the third one
>> sheet three of exhibit A1 >> no tax map >> oh I'm sorry new exhibit >> and uh so this would be are we at exhibit two >> A2 >> two okay >> uh two sheets of the tax map either uh
sheets 35 and 36. Is there any reference to the width of the right of way on the tax map um in of schoolhouse lane? >> It's noted as 50 foot. >> And who prepared the tax map? >> Richard Smith.
>> Thank you. >> Is that it for your questions? That's it. Um, anything you know I guess board any any other questions before we wrap things up here to the board? >> My question is for the planner.
>> Okay, then I think we then we will uh >> Mr. Chair, we I guess we'll need a date certain from which we can carry this matter. I'm going to guess the time and location, but I'm not going to guess the date. >> Yes. Do we have a possible dates?
>> November 17th. >> November 17th. >> November. >> We don't have an early November meeting. Correct. >> Correct. >> It's the Monday of that week. >> Monday night. >> Yeah. Well, some people start early. Yes, >> some people don't Monday night.
>> More incentive to finish up >> like an optimist. >> Yeah, >> it worked for me. >> Is that acceptable? >> Your planner planners. [Music] Yes, Mr. Simon
saying November November 17th. Um I'm I'm an attorney in the municipality that night. Um Miss Holmquist is our professional planner. She has a conference, Mr. chairman is at least let's start with the applicants if they can make it
and then we'll go from there. Okay, >> we're available. >> They are available and they're not. >> And uh >> I mean you miss homequist if I understand correctly is a a sole proprietor so to speak of planning
consultancy. >> Right. Right. Um what I what I normally recommend in these circumstances or the request of the board so not to completely hold up the applicant is if the applicant
>> Simon can you please use the microphone >> right it's bad habit um what I normally would uh request um on behalf of my clients is the following that not to hold up the applicant that on the November 17th
date. I don't know if the board has other matters, but that the applicant can continue and present, I'm assuming, um, Mr. Doherty, their professional planner, and have him do direct, answer questions from the board, answer
questions from the board professionals, other members of the public, and then we would come back at a future meeting so that I would have an opportunity to cross-examine Mr. Dherty and then present uh Miss Homequist. >> I would not be in favor of that. That
drags it out yet another meeting. Um and um it gives a lot of advantage with a transcript in hand to develop cross-examination. I think it's inherently unfair. Um in addition to which um I am not aware um I would have
to bring my planner back a second time in order to redirect. Yeah, I would agree with that. I think if we're going to continue if we can't do it on uh the 17th, what was the the next available date? If we would have to continue to another date anyways,
>> next available date would be December 1st. >> Would that be acceptable? >> Yes. >> My planner and I are both available on December 1st. >> Okay, let's let's make it for December 1st. >> Thank you.
Just if I may, Mr. Chairman, just only because you know I like to do it. >> Seven o'clock here. >> That's right. You stole my thunder again. No. Yeah. But we are carrying this matter without further notice. This is the only notice for members of the public. Uh carrying it to Monday,
December 1st, 2025 at 7 p.m. at the same location. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> What? >> Yes. >> She was putting it back in the thing
over there. That's what it was. >> So, if if people are going to leave at this point, we have other business. Uh you're certainly welcome to leave, but please do so quietly so we can continue. >> Thank you. So the uh next thing on our agenda is a
on the public is another public hearing. Please be quiet and we if if you want to continue talking you can talk in the in the hallway. Thank you. Uh another public hearing on uh uh well I'm supposed not supposed to call it a
courtesy hearing but could you on TB 1225 township of Morris? Could you introduce it Sonia? >> Yes M. >> Our next application is EB12 of Mars for courtesy review block 8003
lot 15 50 Woodland Avenue in the OSGU zone applicant proposes the installation of a temporary Apex storage container. >> Mr. Warner. >> Yes, Mr. Chairman. This is uh
this is a capital project review uh for the benefit of the board and members of the public. We have had these in the past, but it's been some time. A capital project review referral under section 31A
of the municipal land use law. Whenever the planning board shall have adopted any portion of the master plan, which we certainly have, uh the governing body or any other public agency, here it's the governing body, the township, having jurisdiction over the subject matter
before taking action necessitating the expenditure of public funds incidental to the location, character, or extent of a project. shall refer the action involving such specific prog project to
the planning board for review the capital project uh for our review and our recommendation in conjunction with the master plan and such body the governing body shall not act until 45 days have elapsed after such reference
without receiving the planning board's recommendation so we review this uh capital project uh on behalf of the township we as a planning board the project is being presented by the township engineer.
>> What's that? >> For optics I would >> for optics is over there appreciate it. The the um and again our role is to review it in conjunction with the master plan. A consistency recommendation or or
finding is is uh appropriate. And also we can make recommendations but only recommendations. We cannot deny the application. This is not a land development application. We cannot impose conditions on the township. Uh but we can make recommendations uh to
the extent we feel those recommendations would bring assuming you find the project to be consistent with the master plan. there may be recommendations that you uh make that in are designed to
bring the project even more uh consistent with the master plan in your opinion. So that's essentially the role. It's a recommendatory role uh yet uh notice is not required.
However, notice was provided because that's how we roll in Mars Township, if you will. uh and uh and uh it is a public hearing pursuant to section 10A of the municipal land use law. So we'll
have those formalities. Uh so I did have an opportunity to review the notice notwithstanding that it was not that it was uh not required. It happened to be sufficient in content uh and happened to be timely uh served and published. It
was certified ma served by certified mail on October 6, published on October 9th. both at least 10 days prior to this evening. Uh, and I can swear in our board planner and I can swear in the township engineer who will be acting as
the uh, capital project uh, engineer. Uh, so if you >> Mr. Before you get going, I just I'd just like >> Oh, I'm sorry. Yes. Thank you. >> Uh, Mr. Chairman, I would I'm going to recuse myself from this um this particular subject because I live
within the 200 ft of this project and it's not fair for me to sit on here on the day to to uh be part of it. Thank thank you committeeman did he did address that while notice is
not required uh one benefit of many of the notice was that we were able to confirm that one of our planning board members is within 200 ft. So out of an abundance of caution appreciate that. >> Thank you. >> Um if I could swear in our township
engineer and our board planner. If you'll both raise your right hand. Do both of you swear to God or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. >> I do. >> Thank you both. I believe we can now proceed with our public hearing on the capital project review. Mr. Chairman, >> okay,
>> you may proceed. >> Thank you. >> I guess we'll accept your qualifications. >> Ah, that's important to put on the record. Thank you, Mr. >> We have the plan. Yes, Joe.
>> Thank you. >> And then on that plan, if you could zoom into pretty much dead center on the plan and a little bit to the plan, right? zoom way in the top. >> Yeah. Well, so we're going to zoom in so
so we could see, you know, the courtroom that we're sitting in and then to our rear. >> And just for the record, uh this is dated September 24, 2025. It's the proposed >> storage pod. >> Correct. Correct.
>> Thank you. So the plan in front of you was prepared by our touch of engineering department under my supervision. Uh the project the capital improvement that we're here to discuss is to locate pod a
pod container to the rear of our existing structure on uh the what I'll call the easterly portion of our property. uh nearest our existing generator
um just outside of these doors here um to an area that is convenient to egress point existing points of egress from the construction code department for records management. We're in the process as a municipality of addressing records
management in physical hard copies that are being transferred into digital storage and uh going through that physical hard copy storage running out of room at this current time. So, as the construction department is in the
process of um doing that digital recordation and consuming more paper and more space, um while we're in the interim of looking at additional renovations to the building to accommodate the growth of the construction department, we have an
immediate need for what we'll call semi-permanent uh storage installation of a pod. Uh this is I I call it semi-permanent in that it is not a a shortterm temporary fix. It is more of a longer term that we
would anticipate being over a year of having this on the site. Um we chose the location uh one because of its proximity to the engineering and construction offices immediately adjacent through existing points of egress to the
building. So ease of access for people to step in and out of the building and get in and out of that storage even during inclement weather. Um and also because of its location next to existing emergency management infrastructure such
as the generator uh that already provides existing screening in that area as shown on the plan. You see there with a U-shape of landscaping that is mature and existing around the generator providing screening for any viewsheds
from the south with the opportunity to then um supplement with additional plantings to the east and then the north side of the pod as necessary. Um there is existing
uh mature trees on the eastern side of the property that's adjacent to uh our lot line what is the rear lots of residentials to to the side of our uh municipal complex. Um and that provides some existing screening. Um and uh to
the extent at ground level there is uh some existing vegetation of shrubs and other things along that common property line that provides some some ground level plantings. So while we didn't feel it was
critical to proposing the screening at this time, um we thought in the interest of concerns for for neighbors that we would anticipate extending this existing screening line north consistent with the line that's
there now. um to to provide that direct screening to specifically tax lots 17 um 161 17 and 18 from a potential viewshed impact. Um the
pod company has made a site visit to be able to look at the location and orientation. Uh this is the desired orientation. Um, but because of overhead lines that come essentially directly over north to south over the existing
generator, there is concern over bringing in the pod and dropping it in that exact location. So, we do anticipate it may orient slightly closer to our building rather than further from our building and may orient
south as opposed to currently east west to avoid that overhead conflict. and I'll feel questions. >> Mr. Chairman. >> Yes. Yeah. M. >> So, um, your microphone's >> you commented on the fact that there was easy access. I don't see easy access to
the pod. It's on the side of the building. You either have to walk around through the parking lot or walk out the front. So through it's right here >> through the rear corner the essentially this door >> the southerntherly corner of the building there is existing egress through the back of the construction
office. >> There is a door there is yes there's a door >> so the staff can from their from their desk in the construction code department which is the southerntherly corner of our existing structure towards Woodland Avenue. >> No it's not shown on
>> it's not on there >> doesn't show the point of view. Uh, so it's going to be existing egress in this area is right around here. >> So I see a I see a hatched building
>> building >> wall but no door it identifies >> it's not illustrated on here. it is. So, uh, our interior hallways aligning through here with engineering on this half of the building, right? And then our conference
room and conference rooms and our courtroom and then >> Okay. So, my my only point is if we need easy access if you're taking documents in and out. So, if there's a door there, that's great. I just I don't see it on
the plan. >> Yeah. So it's from this rear corner right roughly right here along the edge of this landscaping >> egress from >> it's not shown >> yes >> the other thing I would say is because of inclement weather uh hopefully this
is mounted on a pad and it has a some kind of solid walkway so people are stumbling across grass and mud to get documents in and out. Um we have
existing access on the side of the B building and then in this area is wall. So we can use this area. >> We can sidewalk. >> There's there's a sidewalk immediately adjacent to the building. >> Okay. All right. So you have a sidewalk which is part of the emergency access from the building. So that's where that
emergency >> point of access is. It's it's commonly used by staff to take a break outside there. Those are my only two concerns. To make it easy to get to and from and to make sure that >> people don't get mud all over their
shoes trying to put documents in the >> the distance that we set it at um was essentially our minimum >> because we wanted to ensure that from the frontage on Woodland it was fully screened by the existing improvements.
Um, so we're talking about basically traversing the the width of this area of the existing generator pad and AC unit pad >> to go from that point of egress over. >> I you know you have already addressed the potential of future screening. So
those are my only two questions. >> Yes. >> Any other >> any other questions comments? Yeah, I would yeah I would just yeah encourage if it is semi- temporary and if you're looking at something a year additional screening would be nice shorter than
that you know that's yeah but going into the spring would be yeah okay that would be my only suggestion anything else I uh >> I'll support a motion wait a minute wait
a minute a minute >> oh technically it's a public hearing are there Any questions from the public? >> Yeah, please. Yeah. State your name and I'm sorry. I >> I uh Chris Piso, 63 Glen Road. Um my
property abuts to the uh municipal building. When we received the notice, it said it was temporary. It wasn't clear on what temporary meant. >> If you know what I'm going to, if you don't mind, I'm going to swear you in this way. You could ask questions, make comments, whatever you like, all at once. Uh so please raise your right
hand. Do you swear to God or affirm that the testimony you're about to give >> is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> I I do. >> Thank you very much. And uh Chris. Okay. We have your name and address. Please proceed. Questions, comments, folks. >> Yeah. Uh so it wasn't clear what
temporary meant. Uh you guys are saying it's it's a year. Hopefully it's a year. It's not five. Um but but our our initial concern was obviously just looking out the back window or sitting on the deck and seeing
this thing. Um doesn't sound like we have much of a choice. It's it's coming. Um but h having uh some type of screen I guess is is you know necessary.
>> Appreciate it. So, uh, what we will be offering is to extend this section of landscaping, same type of species, further north and then viewing that back towards the building so that
from angles as you as you go out towards our parking lot and additional properties to the north and northeast uh, also provide that same benefit. So, similar to how we're screened on the three sides here with the existing infrastructure, we would do the same for
the pods. >> Do you have any idea what color this thing is? >> Uh, most most commonly they are white. They're fresh painted white. They may have a label of the company on the side of them. >> Um, but the any branding would not be
visible to the to the nation properties based on the proposed landscaping. Is it going to be a fence and shrubs? I think that's what you have right now at at the uh around the generator, right? >> We would intend on installing
>> shrubs only um close enough to not have gaps in them for viewshed. >> Uh and then that would give us the opportunity once they're removed to then relocate those throughout the property without having hard infrastructure to also remove. >> Okay.
Have you guys thought about uh having documents exposed to the weather in this thing? I mean, it's like sealed, so it's not going to get wet, but you're going to have moisture and whatnot. You're going to probably have like melting problems. I think that's your problem, not ours. But
>> it is it is a concern. We are considering using it for a shorter term storage of each document so that the documents can be pulled from file making space for the current documents and the documents about to go to archive can go
there be prepped and then taken to archive to go through that process which is which is currently does have budget allocations for archiving materials and so as we archive and they come back they don't then have to go back into storage. So, do you re realistically think this
thing's only there for potentially a year, though? >> Uh, it's going to be over a year. It'll probably be in the, I'd say, one to twoyear term. Um, and in the same time, that's giving us the flexibility to look at the expansion of construction department
into adjacent areas where some of the office space is underutilized to expand that area and create more storage internal to get out of that storage unit as fast as possible. And whatever shrubs you plant will be mature enough to cover this thing. We're not waiting two years
for them to grow in. >> Correct. >> Provide ample height to cover the structure. >> Okay. >> All right. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Question. >> When when will the pod be
installed? >> What month of the year? Um I I believe they're prepared to deliver it as soon as >> Okay. >> Yes. >> I mean screening is going to wait until they can plant.
>> Well, as long as you have a shovel in the ground, you can plant according to the nursery. >> Yeah, >> especially with it. >> I mean, if it's really coming now, it would be nice to not look at it all winter to be honest. >> And we'll look to to put some landscaping in immediately prior to its
arrival. We would appreciate that. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Question. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. Thank you. >> Um
I think we're closing the public hearing. >> Yes, we're closing the public hearing. It's the public. >> I think the public has left. Yes. >> Um so, uh again, it's uh uh recommendatory. Uh so, oh maybe we should hear very briefly from our
planner with respect to master plan consistency. >> And as I take the microphone away. >> Yeah, I'll be very quick. I mean that our master plan doesn't discuss this type of thing specifically, but I I think um there are some there is
language in there about an attractive streetscape, etc., etc. But I think the the addition of the um landscaping to shield it would certainly fall within that category. >> So your opinion it is not inconsistent
with the master incon whatever it is the double negative not inconsistent. That's right. Right. She was infected >> and and a recommendation by the board, should the board so desire to make that recommendation with respect to landscaping as was testified to by the engineer uh if anything would make the
project in your opinion even more consistent with the master plan? >> Yes, it would. Yes. >> Even less inconsistent. >> Even less inconsistent. >> Less less naughty. the hour. It's the hour. >> That's it.
>> Nothing further. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Can I will entertain a motion? >> No, >> we have more. Unfortunately, we have more a motion to approve or recommend. >> I assume it's a motion to approve, find
it not inconsistent with the master plan, and make the landscaping recommendation. >> That's right. I move that we um approve that it is not inconsistent with the master plan >> that our review has >> and and that to make the recommendation on
>> and I recommend that we landscape so that the neighbors don't have to look at it. >> Great. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> I guess we have to call the role. >> We do. >> Yes. Flowers. >> Yes.
Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Okay, bud. You're getting a big >> pod face. >> Okay, you're back.
came here. >> No, we have the >> in your driveway. >> Not yet. Right. >> We still have a couple other things. We have uh >> What do I do with my >> We're going to put agenda. >> Oh, thanks.
>> Um well, the legislative committee any reports? >> No. >> No. Okay. Uh then we have the resolution to appoint our tele yeah telecommunications consultant. >> You want to tee that up, Mr. Warner? >> Sure. We have a resol resolution
designating our telecommunications. Uh Mr. uh Peter Lup. Uh I believe we have a couple of uh telecommunication uh applications uh that may or may not come before this board because they may be administratively handled. He will be
part and parcel just making that determination. I recall correctly. One is the water tower at the Red Bulls facility and one I believe is a municipal location as well. Um so I suspect there's a need uh for his appointment.
>> This is like potential cell phone towers or or like >> I think they're gez. Uh no the attachments. Oh my goodness. What do you call it? Well,
there's a better name. There's a more legal term, but that's okay. >> Okay. >> It's not a new tower. It's just >> not new to >> additional, >> but something that we may need the consultant for.
>> Oh. Oh, God. >> Okay. >> The code is the part with the infrastructure. It says you can do with the other existing. Exactly >> right. Okay. >> On something else. >> Okay. So, we're we want to authorize the
award for uh for uh telecommunications consult. >> It is a resolution. So, motion second. Roll call vote. >> Right. So, can I have a motion to accept? >> I move that we accept the resolution. >> Second. >> Um all in favor. There's a roll.
>> A roll call. >> It is a roll call. A resolution. Okay. Right. It's not an appointment. >> Roll call. >> Yes. >> Mr. Barrett. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Mr. Flower. >> Yes. >> Mr. Rabbit. >> Yes. M. >> Yes. >> Mr. Ben. >> Yes. >> Mr. Quick. >> Yes.
>> Yes. >> Mr. Brian. >> Yes. >> Okay. Uh calendar review. >> Oh yes. >> We have the Yes. We want to look at that. Um >> I have I have put the calendar together
for 2026. The only one that I checked all the all the holidays and um the only one that I have to question the board is September the 14th
or the 21st law keeper is the 21st of September. If you want to hold the meeting that's the third that's the third Wednesday in September of 2026. >> Well that can't be that's the committee meeting. No, >> that but the third Wednesday is a
township committee meeting. >> Third Wednesday. >> Oh, you said Wednesday. >> Sorry. Monday. Monday. >> Yapor is not a good idea to meeting. >> No is that is that Monday. >> So is that 21st
>> and then that Monday the 7th is a holiday. So we can't have that Monday because it's labor day. Oh, what you're saying is both the 7th and the 21st would be our ordinary queue up. So, you're proposing the second Monday and the >> just the second.
>> Just the second right. >> Yeah. >> So, the 14th. >> Yeah, >> that would be that's my preference. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Yeah, that'll be fine. >> 14th. >> The 14th. >> 14th. Yes. >> Yeah. I don't think it's a good idea to hold a meeting on a religious holiday.
>> Definitely not. I can represent that Yon Kapoor is the holiest of our holy days. >> So we'll have that meeting just another >> just the 14th right. >> That's okay.
>> No. >> Okay. >> January. >> Okay. Thank you. Uh, >> you or somebody else. >> No, thank you. Yeah, that's that's good news. >> You just said it, Sonia.
[Laughter] >> I'm going to hold you to that now. >> Someone else will bring it back. >> Okay, we would have a open for public comments, but the public have left. So, um,
>> we do have a need for a close session, but >> very brief, >> very brief close session. Um, >> as soon as the door is shut, >> we can close shut the door and stop recording. Is that the >> Okay. Now, let's >> make a motion that we close the meeting.
>> I second that. >> All in favor? >> Thank you. Meeting is closed. Thank you very much.