The Township of Morris Planning Board for Monday, March 17, 2025. The legal notice required in accordance with the Open Public Meetings Act has been satisfied and a statement certifying Sam will be executed. Please rise and join me for the pledge of
allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Okay. Sonia, could you call the role? Yes. Here. Mr. Flowers here. Mr. Barrett here. Mr. Rabbits here. Here. Mr. Ben here. Mr. Quillin here. Mr. Ria here.
Mr. B here. Miss Laney here. Mr. Warner here. Mr. Hansen here. And here. Thank you. Starting off then. First thing we have is some uh resolution to memorialize the action we took uh in the
last meeting. Um, Mr. Chairman, happy to give a quick summary to refresh the board's recollection. The CHCM Madison resolution. Am I going too quick? Did you want to announce it first? No, that's my CHC. My fault. I have a habit
of doing that. I CHCMadison project owner uh LLC uh at the Madison Hotel. Uh if the board will recall, we previously uh a long long long time ago, a few months ago, uh the the uh uh granted minor site plan approval without any
bulk varian design waiver relief to construct the PA patio and landscaping uh uh outside of the hotel uh one convent road. Uh the applicant came back and sought amendment to uh modify conditions of approval
particularly to provide for uh exterior lighting, string lights, uh uh speakers uh and uh uh heat lamps uh for winter uh usage. Uh the board did grant that
approval. Uh and uh that was an 8:1 vote uh to grant that approval uh with certain conditions of approval as there always are. Uh the speaker system facing interior uh ambient for ambient music and any uh uh live music would be
acoustic, not amplified. Uh speakers would be turned off by 1000 p.m. Uh all heaters outside on the patio portable and no not rather than permanent heaters being installed and all lights being turned off no later than 11 p.m. Just
some of the conditions of that approval. Hopefully the resolution accurately memorializes the board's decision. And if it does, I assume it'll be adopted. Mr. Chairman, can I make a motion that we adopt the resolution as drafted? Second. Any comments before we go vote?
I have one comment which is a correction. Uh on page four, item number 11, there was one one member of the public who testified and um she lives at 8 Sheepard Place instead of 8 Sherman Place. Thank you. I apologize uh to all
including Miss Burke whose address I had wrong. It's on page four, item number 11. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. I'll assume the motion and the second would include that amendment. I amend my motion based on
Mr. Quillins. I second that. Good review of the resolution. Okay. Could you call the RO? Yes. Mr. Rabbit. Yes. Miss Murphy. Yes. Mr.
Ben. Yes. Mr. Yes. Mr. B. Yes. Okay, thank you. Uh, moving on then to the our public hearing for tonight. We have one application preliminary and final major subdivision approval for
PBO723. Want to introduce that for us, Sonia? Yes, Mr. Chairman. This is PBO7-23 257 M Kimble LLC for preliminary/9 final subdivision variance block 5401 lot 22 27 Mimble
Avenue in the RA15 OSGU zone applicant proposes a major subdivision to create four single family residential lots consistent with the RA15 zone and two lots which will be for passive open
space consistent with the OSTU zone. Mr. Warner, you want to give a little introduction? Uh certainly. Uh we uh actually first if I may, I'll uh make a note on the record that I did have an
opportunity to review the notice. Found the contents of the notice to be sufficient. Found it to be timely served and published. uh certified mail service on March 5th, published on March 6th, both at least 10 days prior to this
evening. Uh so therefore, the board does have jurisdiction to hear and decide the application. Uh, I don't want to steal any thunder from the applicant or their uh uh professionals and counsel, but I
thought it might be helpful with the board's indulgence uh to give a brief synopsis for context of the at least some of the history of this application and I apologize if I get any of it incorrect and anyone feel please to
correct me if I do. Um but in broad strokes, this was a uh at one point in time a zoning board application at least three if not more years ago. Um that I believe had approximately 11 town houses
uh proposed uh I believe it was nine market affordable if I'm not mistaken but I could be wrong. Um and uh there were hearings board of adjustment hearings and I believe it was a three to four denial. It was a devariance
application would have required five affirmative votes. Came up two votes short if I'm not mistaken. Uh there was a subsequent litigation and appeal uh and negotiations uh uh as to a potential whispering wood
settlement uh as I understood it. And then at a certain point uh there was a settlement agreement uh and a as we're all aware we were participants uh by way of master plan consistency review uh of a resoning ordinance uh and I believe
and we'll certainly hear more in a moment uh the current application consistent with a uh resoning uh ordinance uh by the township as part of the settlement uh provides for four single family dwellings
uh as opposed to originally 11 town houses. Uh and two approximately 3 acres of open space uh in the form of two lots uh which lead essentially a trail head if you will as well as some public
parking uh for that trail head leading uh to a larger 60 plus acres if I'm not mistaken uh open space area. Um, we did at the time find uh that the uh uh uh resolution, excuse me, the
um the ordinance uh at the time may have uh been inconsistent with the master plan. Uh but nevertheless uh with a reasons resolution, the governing body uh uh moved forward with the adoption of that ordinance because the master plan
had not yet been a uh modified to uh to match up with that change in the zoning. Um but uh that is the current status as I believe we'll hear uh and I believe the application is consistent. Uh maybe
I should leave that to Miss Laney uh to confirm from uh a planning perspective uh from the township uh end, but it's my understanding uh the application is consistent with the resoning ordinance uh and the settlement agreement, all of
which was previously adopted. So I hope that helps give a little bit of context and I guess I'll find out shortly how wrong I was in my characterization of the uh some of the history of the application. So, none for the moment. I'll always
reserve my right and I'll swear everybody in when you want me to. Okay. Thank you. You You want to proceed then, please? Yes. Uh, good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the board, attorney Rosemary Stone Dowardy with the law firm of Ay Strauss. Here tonight on behalf of
the applicant, 257 Mike Kimble LLC. As the board's council just elegantly put it, we're here tonight on a preliminary and final site plan. Sorry. Final major subdivision site plan in order to subdivide the existing property into six
lots of which four of those lots will be buildable lots that do not require any relief as far as setbacks, coverage, etc. In fact, we're just showing the lots this evening. building plans would be submitted in accordance with due
course through the construction department to comply with whatever the board were to vote favorably on this evening. And then two of those lots would be dedicated to the municipality for open space. One to be where the trail head is and provide three parking
spaces and the other one obviously part of your open space plan as well. With that being said, as council indicated, there was a lot of discussion um that happened on this application and there's been some metamorphosis of this
application from what was originally submitted in front of the zoning board to what the planning board sees here this evening. We feel that on behalf of the applicant, we have honored everything that we have represented to the municipality um as far as the sizes
of the lots, how the lots are configured, the uh right of way that's been created, the open space that's going to be created as well. Um so we're very hopeful that the planning board will agree with us. I will give you a little road map. We have with us tonight
Mr. Alfred Stewart who is here to my left. He's my client's engineer. He's going to go through the engineering existing conditions and what is proposed. And if and only if needed, because I don't want to belabor the board's time. I'm sure everybody would like to go out for St. Patrick's Day. We
have with us our traffic expert and also our professional planner on deck in case we need them to also provide testimony. So, with that being said, council, if we could start with swearing in the professionals. Yes, please. Yeah, I will applause our
board professionals on my right and left. Uh if all of you will raise your right hand, 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. I do. Thank you all. Back to you, okay,
chairman. Y I'm sorry. Can I get a clarification? Um, one the the the purpose of this application is not final site plan approval, but just a division of the of the property into the lots. Is
there be a need for another hearing? Preliminary and final major subdivision approval. That's it. Since these are conforming residential lots, when it comes time to build, those plans would simply go through your building department. there would be nothing else
coming back to the board. And since, if I may, Mr. Chairman, since it's residential, uh, no site plan requirement, just the subdivision requirement, I think one of the reasons, and for the for the record, I was on the the board of adjustment at the time of this application. I honestly don't
remember how I voted. I mean, there are certainly things about the application I did not like, but that's all been resolved largely because of because of of the of the change in zoning. But one of the concerns that we had was it being historic district, do the
architectural drawings represent something historical district would approve or that we would approve as being representative of the historic um requirements of a of a historic district. And so I don't see
anything in here in in here which shows the historic which shows the architectural renderings as to whether it might comport to historic designation you know so I don't know whether that needs to be done now
or something that we should be considering as a board. Um, I just want to raise that issue because I mean I have the historic from last time. I have historic drawings. This is for the 11 units. Right. Right. So, this
is different, but I'm wondering whether it's the same architect. I was wondering whether we should maybe my understanding um if I may um and I'm sure your board council will chime in is that because we're here on just a subdivision and
we're no longer a commercial site plan, we're exempt under your ordinances as far as um historic. Um, however, when application when house plans are provided to your construction department, it's my understanding, even
though they would only be purely recommendation and advisory, they are presented to your historical committee for any comments or notes at that time, but it's not a a it's not goes in front of like the historical committee as part of a board application because we are
not a site plan. We're just here on preliminary and final major subdivision. Yeah, it is sub, for example, if someone were Steve Steve, sorry. If someone were going to build a single family dwelling on a lot that existed, they would have
to go through the building permit process that any issues would be raised at that time administratively. Um, so there is no site plan obligation uh for for the applicant on uh before this board for this application. So hopefully so they don't
need to comport to any historical Uh, at least not yet, I guess, is the best way to put it. When would yet occur? Yet would occur on on on building permit grading plans to the extent uh, frankly, a determination would have to be made.
Are they exempt? Are they not exempt? And uh if if they're not exempt, I think it would be recommendatory uh from the historic preservation commission given the status. In a situation like this, when the uh grading plan and a and a building plan come in,
uh it's flagged in the computer when the submission gets processed that it goes right to the uh historic commission. We don't do any review until the historic commission presents this report back to us. And at that point, all we're looking
at then is the grading aspects of the lot um and uh to asssure that the zoning is correct and that the the building is in the building envelope for the uh the zone. So, if the historic commission says there's nothing about this that
represents the historic area in which it's located, it might still very well go forward because there's no meat to that opinion. Well, it's part of the ordinance that it's supposed to be
historic, you know, with your architecture ordinance. Um but uh we let the uh historic commission have first review of it. If they're happy with it, then we'll review it and we'll make comments.
And if they're not happy with it, well, they'll list in a report what they would like to see. And then the architect would have to possibly revise the architecture to uh address the concerns. Okay. So, but there there's no actual
power there, is there? I mean, suppose the architect refuses, then what happens? Well, you make it a condition of approval that they We would tonight we would have to make it a condition of approval. Is that correct? Yes. Okay, Mr. Chairman. Yes. I have a question.
I'm a little confused. Is it five lots, one lot turning into five, or is it one lot turning into six? Because I heard there's going to be four residential lots and then there's going to be two lots. So the application says one lot into five. It's actually one lot into six. I believe it's going to be
technically six lots. Correct. Six lots. Two open space lots. We're going to hear more from an engineer. But I just it was confused me because I thought we were It was a five lot subdivision. It's actually a six lot subdivision. Six lot subdivision. Four single family dwellings. Four of the lots are Well,
just I believe when they first went to the for the TCC it stated five and it was corrected to six. Okay. subsequently. Yeah, I was just pulling it off the application. I apologize. Yeah. All right. Got it. Now I understand. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes. One other question sort of related
to what we've been discussing. Yes, sir. In terms of subsequent work, I noted in reading this material that it was recommended there be an architectural survey because it is part of a historical district and and uh that I I
guess based on what I've heard that needs to be a condition of what we talk about tonight in order to assure that happens. So rather than putting it on the building department to try to remember to do that, it would have to be part of this discussion as well. In the
event the archaeological dig, they can do a radar scan. They don't have to do a dig. Yeah. I mean, the radar is probably cheaper and easier, but in the event it's either a stipulated to condition or a board imposed condition, that would be the case. And it would
have to be tonight. We can't we couldn't forget that, right? I think we've gone through a number of conditions. We haven't even haven't their first witness yet, but that's okay. Well, let's let's get started and we'll
I'm sure things will come up as we go along. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, at this point in time, uh, Mr. Stewart, can you tell the board a little bit about your background, where you received your education, and what licenses you hold? Sure. I've been practicing in the field.
The microphone so Yeah. Okay. I've been practicing in the field of surveying and engineering since 1984. I received my certificate in surveying from County College of Morris in 1986. Received my surveyor's license from the state of New Jersey in 1991.
uh graduated from NGIT in 1996 with a bachelor's in civil engineering. Received my civil engineering license in 1999 from the state of New Jersey. Been in my own business since the year 2000. Uh testified before numerous boards throughout northern New Jersey on
similar plans such as this. And your license is still in good standing? Yes, it is. Thank you. Okay. Uh I'll accept. Go ahead. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Stewart. Um, even though the board has heard the discussions, can you just kind of go through what exists today and what
is being proposed? Sure. I'm going to be referring to my plans which are revised to revision number five 22 26 of 25 which I do believe the board has in place and are we do and uh it's more than 10 days ago. So we don't have to mark those as an
exhibit as long as what you're referring to remains in the same form that it was submitted to the board. Yes, it does. Okay. As you know, this is 257 Mount Kemell A, which is opposite Old Harder Road down to the southeast portion of
the site. Um, we're known as block 5401, lot 2, which is a vacant lot containing 5.53 acres. Uh, we are in two zones. The OSGU zone, a portion of the property, and the other portion is in the RA15 zone. Uh
basically the RA15 zone is also to the west of us and to the east of us. Uh to the north of us is another parcel that's OSGU. Um to the northeast of us on the same side of Mount Kemell A in this area
here is also RA15. And then to the south of us is RA25. Before I go on to the next sheet, my sheet two, I'm going to refer to the bottom left corner of our sheet one,
which is the zoning requirements for the properties. Uh, I don't know if I need to zoom in for the board. Try and do that here. So, you can maybe also for the benefit of the public could extend your cap. Yes. Let me see what I can do. That's page
two plus. It's actually not. I need some assistance. Hold on one second, please. There we go. Okay. And then you can scroll up. Okay. Got it. Sorry. New computer. No, you're just not fluent in in Mac is
what it is. that it's probably the case. Yes. Wasn't your qualifications for that's why there was a reason. That's good. All right. So, as you can
see, uh we are proposing four lots, residential lots, lots 2.02 through 2.05, and they are all in compliance with your zoning requirements of the RA15 zone. So, I just like to point that out before I move on to the next sheet so we don't have to scroll back and
forth. So, as far as all these uh the zoning schedule goes, we're in compliance with all the proposed residential lots. So, now I just simply do a control minus zoom out and next
page. Okay. time. There we go. Got it on the mouse. Okay, this will be sheet two. This shows the topography of the area slightly. There we go. Basically, the topography of the area slopes upward from Mount Kemell A.
Uh just to give you a brief overview, elevation approximately 384 is on Mount Kemell Lav in this area here, which is to the right of your drawing. Going uphill to the left of the drawing or to the west, uh the elevation
at the rear of the property is at 548. This is an approximately a 22% slope on average throughout the site. Now, as you see the shading throughout the site, uh the darker shaded areas reflects the steeper slope areas. The lighter is the lesser slope area. So, as you can see,
as you're coming up from Mount Kemell A, the slope is gradually going up and then there's a steeper area located basically in the middle of the property. Then a lesser slope area towards the back half and then it gets steeper as you go up the hill towards the rear of the
property. The property is serviced by municipal sewer and water uh coming from Mount Kemell Lab. Also gas and electricity as well. So that's where our utilities will be coming from off of Mount Kemell Lab frontage. Go to sheet three, which is
our layout sheet. Basically, this is our subdivision. We are proposing Prudent Court, which is a 40 foot wide rightway, which we intend to dedicate to the municipality. That roadway comes up off Mount Kemell Lav toward the southeast
side of the property opposite Old Harter Road. comes up through the property, makes a left and bends over towards the dead end of the roadway or the end of the roadway. At the end of the roadway, we do have a hammerhead turnaround that we are proposing rather than your
typical culde-sac, circular culde-sac. Uh this turnaround area is sufficient for your fire trucks. We did meet with your engineer and fire chief a few weeks back uh to review that and uh that is acceptable to them uh upon our meeting.
We are proposing four lots and as you can see here's the four lots off the roadway fronting on the roadway. Uh and these dash lines reflect the building envelopes that are in accordance with your zoning regulations. And there's our
building envelope or building area for the homes. Okay. In addition to the four residential lots, we are creating an open space lot, which is this lot here shaped at like a T. Uh that consists of 2.519
acres. And then off on the other side of Prudent Court, we are proposing another uh municipal lot which is in this area here. And that is 342
acres. And that lot will be housing the um parking area for the open space parcel across the street. I'm sorry if I may, Mr. Chairman. How many spaces was it? Three or four uh spaces for parking. Parking. I'll get
to that which is on the next sheet. I'm jumping ahead. My apologies, Mr. Chair. That's okay. Since you said that, we'll go to the next sheet, which will be sheet four. This shows our layout of the utilities and the homes and the
driveways. And as you come up off of Mount Kemell A, coming up to the right will be three parking stalls for the open space. As you continue up to the left will be the first driveway to lot 2.04. Continuing up around another driveway to
lot 2.05. Continuing up to a driveway within the Hammerhead to lot 2.02. And at the end of the roadway, a driveway to lot 2.03. Uh that's basically the layout for
the roadway. Uh within the roadway, of course, will be our sewer and water and electric and gas most likely depending on the the uh utilities comments once we uh proceed with those installments. Uh so that basically storm water is within
prudent court up to the den roadway. Uh we do have a hydrant for blowoff purposes at the end of the of the uh roadway and the sanitary manhole. Last one right here is a head end uh for the last home servicing the last home. Of course, it's all flowing downhill to
Mount Kemell Lab. As far as a drainage system goes, each home we are proposing to have approximately two dry wells for roof runoff purposes which is independent of the drainage calculations that we have provided for the detention basin. That is collecting the runoff of
prudent court by having inlets throughout prudent court spaced accordingly to collect majority of the runoff up towards the end towards Mount Kemell Lav. Uh that is all being collected and directed to a detention basin within right off of Mount Kimell a
here. Then the overflow does go into the municipal system that is located right at the southeast corner of our property in this section here. So the overflow from that detention area will go or be directed into that municipal system. Mr.
goes down. Start with an apology for another uh interruption which may also be premature, but the the uh will you be addressing the detention basin? Its location is it located in the uh uh open
space area to be uh intended to be to convey to the municipality or is it on the in a uh in a different location? No, that will be on lot 2.06 6 that will be dedicated to us now. Okay. And will there be a continuing obligation on the
part of the applicant to maintain same or how is that being handled? Uh that question I'm not sure of as of yet. We'll have to get back to you on that question. should come. I I thought the
intention was to dedicate the property and the improvements to municipality which included the drainage. Within that drainage system is uh filters, two filters, one on each end for the runoff that the the basin will be receiving prior to it discharging
into the municipal system. Daddy's my next sheet which will be sheet five which is our grading plan. This is the section of the of the property that is being developed. Like I said it earlier 5.5 acres total property
area. Um of that 5.5 areas approximately half is being uh developed which would be the uh this section here where residential homes are going and the roadway. Now I'll continue up um the roadway again as we're coming off of
Mount Kemell Lav. Of course it's sloping upwards at a gentle slope proceeding around the hard I'm sorry turning to the right on this corner here approximately uh probably about 120 degree turn where then you can access the parking areas for the open space and that area through
there is gently sloping. It's approximately a 8% or 12% slope I think it was. Continuing up the roadway, we then go to where it slopes to 15% which is the maximum allowed by RSI standards. So we are in compliance with the the
slope of the roadway. Now as you can see near the parking stalls there's a wall shaped like a U surrounding the parking area parking stalls. That wall is 4 feet in height and that's of course to retain the parking areas uh because this side of the of the wall is lower than the
road itself. So this way you can park com comfortably within those stalls at a nice grade where then you can cross the street to access the open space. Continuing up the roadway, we do have a a second wall that's located right in
this section here. Beginning at this section here, continuing up along the rightway line within the right of way to where a maximum height of six feet is obtained right in this section here and continuing up along the roadway or
rightway line curving with the road up to the end here where it meets grade again. And the reason for that wall is to fill for the roadway. And like I said, the maximum height is six feet. From there it just slopes downward in each direction to meet
grade. So that is a fill situation for the road and that's why the wall is necessary. Now continuing up the roadway at the top of the page up in this section here uh begins another wall which is for the cutting of the roadway. So basically we have to cut into the
hill to provide grading for the road and that wall continues up along here to approximately the end the beginning of the hammerhead I should say. And that wall is actually located on lot 2.02, not within the right ofway. Um, and that
maximum height on that wall is at six feet at this location here. And again, it does slope downwards uh to meet grade at the beginning of it and slope downwards to meet grade at the end of it. Uh, there is a typo right in this section here. It does say 668 top of
wall. That's actually supposed to be 666.00 for the top of wall. So that's a 5 and a half foot uh elevation there, not seven and a half foot. I just like to point that drafting error out to the board in case there's any questions later on
that. So since this wall is located within the front yard of lot 2.02, that's a varying situation because it's a 6 foot high wall where 4 foot is allowed within uh within your zoning ordinance. Okay. And I'm sorry if I may for
clarification that first one that you pointed out earlier that was 6 feet tall retaining wall is that technically in the front yard of a lot as well or no this first wall on the right as you're coming up prudent prudent court is within the right of way. Okay. So it's it's it's
not on lot 2.06. It's not a variance. Correct. That's correct. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. Okay. So, continuing along Prudin Court uh to a third wall that's located on the
left hand side. Again, that's a fill situation because it's on the lower side of the road. So, we have the fill to accommodate the roadway. And again, that wall height is a maximum height of 6 feet right in this location here. Um and that though, I'm sorry, that wall is
located on both lots 2.04 in here and 2.05. So again, that's another varying situation for a wall being six feet in height on lots 2.04 and 2.05. And if I may, is it a in the front yard of each
of those two lots? I would consider this the front yard of each of those lots. Yes. Yet it's one continuous wall. It's one continuous wall. Yes. Thank you for the clarification. Sure. So basically for the roadway, those are the walls that are being proposed. Now,
for on each lot, we do have some walls proposed for a driveway and the garage access. This is to create a uh um basically a flatter area in front of the the garage areas. So, they have a nice turnaround area, nice approach into the garage, and it's not steep at all. Uh
basically, I believe the percent is approximately four 4% at the maximum entering each garage area. And the reason uh we need the walls is to maintain that 4% slope. So as you can see on I'll start with lot 2.02 up here
in the upper leftand corner. We have a stone wall being proposed right in this section here that will allow us to have a nice gentle slope up on the uh upper end of the driveway to enter the garage and back out and head out um towards proven court. That wall, if I may, is I
think that's only three and a half foot high wall. Uh, but that's the idea behind each and every one of these walls surrounding the driveways. So, that one is complying with the 4ft height even if it's in the front yard. Correct. That is correct. And I will zoom in just to verify
that. Okay. Yep. It's 478.0. It's 474.5 here. And that's the highest point of the wall. And that is a difference of three and a half ft. too
far. Okay, somehow there we go. Now, moving down to lot 2.03. And I'll keep this zoomed in so we can see it clear. As you come up the driveway, we do begin to have a wall located on the lefth hand side. As you're coming up the driveway, approaching the garage
area right in this section here. Um, even with the front of the house, that is a 6 foot high wall right in this section here. So, basically, I believe that would be a variance as well, but from this point forward, it's sloping
downward to basically zero where it meets grade. So, right at the front line of the house, it is at 6 ft. And that would technically be in a front yard. It's within the front of the house. So depending on your ordinance, I'm not sure if it defines it as front yard,
meaning in front of the front yard setback. If it's in front of the plane of the front of the house, then it's front yard. Okay. So that one foot behind the face of the house is considered side and rear yard where six foot would be permitted. Okay. So
basically at the front line of the house, it is at six feet high. So So that is a a wall that would be required by relief. Yes. At some point. at some point. Thank you. You're welcome. Going over to lot
2.04. As you're coming off of Prudin Court, coming up the driveway, then flattens out. And that retaining wall along that driveway here is at 420 and 415. So that's a 5 foot high wall at the highest point at
this corner. That's another variance because that is in the front yard as well. And then going to our final lot 2.05 coming off a prudent court. Again, a nice slope into the garage area. We are retaining that driveway with a wall
uh which basically starts at zero goes to uh basically 2 feet in height and then near the corner of the home down here. It does go into a six foot high wall within this section here and that's the maximum height at the corner of the house. from there going back towards
food and court it does diminish in height. So again another variance request for that one. So if I may real quick Mr. Chairman for confirmation we have a walls on 203 204 and 205 that require variance relief
because they're between four and six feet tall at some point. Correct. Correct. Correct. And then we have walls uh roadway walls uh uh in the front yard
of lot 202. One of them at 6 ft and one of them at 6 ft in the front yard of lots 204 and 205. Consider that one wall. Uh then those are two further uh uh deviations as well. Correct. That's correct. And
were those I'm sorry I'm I keep looking for the uh ending the the Is that all as far as walls are concerned that that required deviation believe? Yes, that's correct. So it's I guess it's technically perhaps five walls if we
count the lot 204 and 205 roadway wall as one wall. Correct. Please sound good to you, David. Right. Thank you. I do have to keep score. There'll be a resolution. No way. Right.
Thank you. Sure. uh council um we did speak to the applicant and the applicant will agree to form an HOA for the limited purpose of just servicing the uh drainage system on the lot 26
2.06 06 to address the concerns with maintenance. And uh we have that stipulation. Of course, ultimately it'll be up to the board to decide whether the stipulation is accepted or not in the context of a decision, but um but the
stipulation is noted for the record. Any question? Sure. Go ahead. I'm I'm kind of glad you brought that up because I was wondering as you were going through where all the walls are. And I would imagine any wall that's on a
homeowner's property, driveway wall, retaining wall is going to be the responsibility of the of the homeowner. But there's also roadway walls. Um and we talked we talked a little bit about you know the an HOA being formed for the limited responsibility of the
maintenance of um the storm water runoff. But what about the roadway walls and whatnot over time they will deteriorate uh and require you know major upgrades to to to uh to fix. Can the HOA also be
included to maintain the the properties the walls along the roadway? Let me confer with the client. I mean, initially my initial thoughts are there can be some instances where sometimes
deterioration of the wall is caused by outside factors that are not weather related, things of that nature. when you start dealing with right ofways that are publicly dedicated for traversing. But we'll confer with the applicant and
we'll answer that before we're done. Right. Typically those walls over time shifts and walls tend to flop. That's what I Mr. Chairman. Yes. I just want to support Councilman Rabbits. I felt the
same way. I mean this these walls don't get built. They don't become township responsibility if there's no subdivision. So now that there's a subdivision, we've added what could be potentially cost to the town 1015 years down the road. There's a homeowners association. I think it would be only
fair for them to pick that up as well. Uh just I would what is the wording of the agreement? And there's something in there that the roadway is to be transferred specifically part of the agreement road transferred to the township. Township. It's dedicated to be
dedicated to this township. Okay. Uh and uh I don't have I'd have to dig in to find lang any spec if there is any specific language with respect to maintenance of retaining walls associated. Okay. Right. That would be
in the agreement. If there is the agreement with govern but maybe the applicant could tell us uh if there isn't uh and it's an open issue Mr. Chairman. Yes. I wasn't clear that there was a homeowners association that
was going to have a continuing life. Is that true? Just stipulated at least so far for the purpose of maintaining the storm water system. Yes. that they will accept that. All right, Mr. Chairman, I have a question. Yes. My
question has to do with the proposed underground storage system for water. I live in the neighborhood, so I'm pretty familiar with the water situation coming off of Mount Kimble and um I can state without reservation that it's always
problem. So my my question is it doesn't appear that the underground storage system is connected to the re the existing um drainage system which consists of some ponds and um man-made streams and
so on that goes down through through the um through the houses on Mount excuse me on Harter Road and connects to the ponds that are in Springbrook. So, it looks like it's just stopping right here in this underground system,
but but I can foresee situations where this underground system could become overwhelmed with water. Um, will you be testifying separately on the storm water management system? I can answer that question, too. Okay. So, I just I just it looks like it it's kind
of just sitting there, but there's other things that could be connected to that would let the water flow more freely and perhaps not back up. Okay. Well, this detention system is based on New Jersey storm water regulations. That's what we sized it
for. Um, and the overflow does come out of this system. It's an overflow now. uh which is basically what we're um allowed to do based on the the regulations. And it does continue out to a drainage manhole on our property right in this
section here. A proposed range. Could you show me where that is on the plan, please? Showing the little hand. Is it sheet five? Could you Is that sheet five? I I can't see it.
Yes. Yes. Sheet five. Yeah. Okay. This is our outlet structure on the site. This controls the runoff leaving the site that's piped into a drainage manhole that's being proposed and then continuing down to an existing
inlet that is across from Old Harter Road right in this section here. So, I see your inlet grade down here. Um, so does that connect to the pond across the street? No, I see. But I'm looking down
here. No, it's Old Harder Road. No, from there that system goes down Old Harder Road underground down to I guess there's a um culvert of some sort on harder old harder road that this drains to and
that's where it eventually goes to. There's a full drainage system within Old Water Road. Okay. And council, just for clarity for the record, even though some people heard it on the mic, the applicant will agree to
add the uh um maintenance of retaining walls into the HOA responsibility. Thank you. Okay. Thank you for that. It certainly appeared to be perhaps an open item in the settlement agreement as I'm reading it.
Can I follow up on her question? Yeah, I have questions also. Yeah. The to the storm water system. I guess maybe this is for you, Dave. Um on harder road can handle this new flow coming into it. A portion of the first section or two of
piping is being replaced uh to increase the uh um the capacity of the detention basin plus what's already along the shoulder. and it's taking it down the uh what would be the uh
northerly uh edge of the road, taking it down to the stream that fills the upper pond at the golf course. Now, with the way that the drainage calculations have been prepared and what the D requires, what's currently coming
off that site uh or what is proposed to come off that site is less than what's going to be coming off that site right now if it rained this afternoon. They're reducing the flow for the uh the storms that the D
requires, namely the 100redyear storm, too. They're reducing it because the D requires that you reduce it. Right. I'll reduce now the flow down the mountain into the streets. Yes. Yes. Yes. So what what is going to be seen at the inlet on
the shoulder of Mount Kimble after the development is going to be less than what currently exists. Okay. If I may, Mr. Chairman, Dave, would it be fair to say that the new pipe the portion of new piping is at least as wide, if not wider, than what presently
exists? Yeah. Would it be wider? Um, the proposed pipe is 21 in. The existing pipe is 12 in. Sounds wider to me. I learned that in law school.
Second year. It's a fuzzy fuzzy fuzzy math. So, so, so just just to be clear, just without getting in all the details because reading the storm water management reports pretty uh in depth. Um, but it
it in your opinion it does conform to the the most recent iteration of the D rules for storm water management which basically at it at least says that the the peak flows during a 100red-year
storm are less than they are under the ex under the non-built condition. Right. Okay. Thank you. All right. All right. So, kind of interrupted you. Yeah. I get my train of thought back. Yeah. Okay. Please keep switching hats,
I guess you can say. All right. So, basically, you know, with these walls because the site uh is characterized by exceptional topographic conditions, that's the reason for the retaining walls. It is a you know basically a 22% average grade going
across the city. So these walls are necessary and they're they're necessary for few reasons. One is to provide for flat areas for driveway and garage access. Another one is to uh reduce the need for additional grading because if we didn't provide the walls, we would
have to grade out further on the site. Take for example this one section right in here which I'll zoom in. See if I can. There we go. This will be on lot 2.04. And here's a proposed wall in this
section here. Uh if we didn't provide this wall, we could actually grade off, but we would be grading off further into lot 2.04 down towards the proposed home area and that would increase the amount of disturbance on the property. So the
walls do decrease the amount of disturbance on the properties and they do um basically reduce the grading issues on the site. Uh also another reason is to be in compliant with the slope of the roadway. As I stated earlier, residential site
improvement standards has a maximum percent of 15% for the grade of a of a roadway. We are at that maximum percent for a portion of of the road and these walls will help that situation as well which would bring us into compliance with residential site improvement
standards. Now with that said um your ordinance does allow for a 4ft wall in the front yard areas. These are only 6t high. It's a twoft deviation which to me would be a minimal deviation on this requirement. I would like to add that any other
development on this site due to the slope of the site itself um would require some sort of variances for wall for a wall system to get on on the site and to grade off the site properly to accommodate any type of other improvements besides this
residential de development that we are doing here. Now I will go to the next. You you mentioned the grading and effect on the uh area of disturbance. Do you have one of these does show the limits limit the
area of disturbance? Right. Yes. I think one of the drawings I think it does that's uh I'll get to that sheet. Okay. Um two more sheets ahead. Okay. But there we go. All right. This is our lighting plan. Uh sheet number, this
will be sheet number six. Okay. On this lighting plan, we are uh providing polemounted lights for the roadway that will gently light the roadway. Uh there's seven of them progressing up the up the roadway. Um
and basically that's all just lighting up the road. Uh and the parking area for the open space [Music] parking. Now this is the sediment erosion and sediment control plan. comment sorry soil road and stem control
plan uh which is the referring to which does show basically the limits of disturbance for the site we go okay now I know it's a very busy drawing um the limit of disturbance is shown by
a dashed line with circles separating the dashes surrounding this site There we go. All through here. This is the limit of disturbance. Back and around around the house all through here. Back down to
Mount Emma. All right. So, as you can see, some of those pockets that we have saved uh from being disturbed in these areas here. If we did eliminate this wall, we would have to grade this off all through here. Same thing with this wall. We
eliminated that. We got the great wall off wall off over here. Okay. Now, back to the slopes. Um, as I stated earlier, the slopes I'll just zoom out a little bit on this
project. The lighter color or white areas are the less slope areas. The darker areas are the greater sloped areas. And the way we designed this was to basically stay away from the steeper areas as much as possible. Um, so when
we came in with the roadway, as you can see, the lesser shaded areas right in this section here is our where we come in with the road and turn with the roadway and go up the hill. Here we've passed through a steeper sloped area
then back to the softer slope areas up near the midsection of the property. And this basically is where as I showed earlier limited disturbances is basically within that lesser sloped area. So we are trying to stay away from the 25% slopes or greater uh just
to eliminate any or any unnecessary uh grading within that steep sloped area. So, as you can see, I think that worked out pretty well for the site to work within the slope or lesser sloped areas and produce less of a design waiver for
what we are proposing. And go down to my get there. And here's our schedule showing the um various areas of the slope areas
based on your categories within your ordinance and the allowable allowable disturbance that we are to have within those areas and then our actual disturbed areas that we are requesting design wages for. So basically 0 to 15
allowed to disturb those areas 15 to 20% slopes. Our allowable disturbance is at 14,223.9 square ft. Our actual disturbed area is at
22,944.4 square ft. So design waiver for that uh category from the 20th 25% our allowable area is 25,46.1 square ft. We are disturbing
41,134.8 square ft. Again, another design waiver for that category for 25% and up slopes allowable is zero. It's not supposed to disturb any of that. And we are disturbing
17,895.9 square ft out of that total of 124,466.6. So, as you can see, that large number of 124,000, we're only disturbing 17,895.9 square ft. So again that goes back to what I was reflecting on earlier about the lesser slope areas being
disturbed and designing accordingly. So that's what we are doing. Okay. So again, just to recap, it's really the variances for the five retaining walls and as you just testified, the waiver regarding steep
slope. That's correct. And as you've shown on your exhibits, because of the topography of the site, there really is no way to design the site without affecting some type of steep slope disturbance. That's correct. Yes. And you did in your
many variations of the plan came up with a way to try to decrease or minimize how much significant steep slope disturbance there would be. Correct. Yes. Thank you. Okay, I'll start up. I have a couple of
questions. Um uh getting back to the storm water management. Um, has have you submitted I believe part of the application supposed to be a a maintenance plan for the storm water system? Has that been supplied? Do Okay,
you you do have it. Okay, good. I just didn't see any reference to it anywhere. If I may, on that note, chairman, that'll be recorded in the county clerk's office. Yes, it will be. And that that will be recorded um after construction because
sometimes during construction might be some sort of modifications that we would have to refer to in the in the manual that will be filed and that if we should approve you would you've already said you you would stipulate the fact that the HOA would would be formed to take
care of that maintenance plan. Correct. And obviously if the board were to grant it as a condition of approval, it would go to board counsel to review as well. Right. And make sure it has both in there regarding the uh drainage system as well as the language regarding the
walls as well. And that would all be perfected and recorded with the county. Okay. Um uh another question, the uh retaining walls, certainly the roadway retaining walls will be built originally, but will the other block walls be
built now or as part of the ultimate construction in the site plan? That's a good question. There might be some minor variations with grading on these. Okay. The the style of the home. So basically, for the most part, these
walls may change shape slightly. Okay. So you're so you're asking for variances to allow the walls, but they may differ somewhat from what they're shown on the plans because they won't be built here yet. Yeah. What I'm trying to say is they may be less, but they're not going
to be more than six feet. Okay. So, so that would be parting if it's granted will cover any deviation that's anticipated. Correct. I'm sorry. Okay. And I guess we could leave acceptable deviation up to the the the engineers
when they review the site plans, right? Excellent. Okay. Um, another question. You mentioned the lighting. Are those seven lights uh dark sky compliant? You know, I mean, I see how they have the up whatever they call
the shields on them, side shields, right? Yes, I do have a detail on the but I didn't see if they had actually dark sky compliant certificates. They're 12 feet high, right? And as you can see, there's the head that's downward facing, right? And they have the shields on
them. I see the ones you have specified with the downward shields on. So, yeah, we could uh where necessary, we can provide the downward shield mainly to protect the residential home, right? Yeah. Well, and migratory birds and everything else that are up there. So,
so um and then the other, you know, like the uh retaining walls and the storm water management system whose responsibility is to maintain those lights. Is that considered part of the roadway or is that uh again?
Yeah, the the light poles are within the right of way. So, I would expect that it's useful. the the if I may Mr. Chairman uh because I'm able to read so I'll read it. The the settlement agreement that I
have in front of me uh does provide that the parties agree that the access roadway identified in the subdivision plan shall be a public municipal roadway and the township shall provide all associated services for the access roadway as it would with any other
public roadway within the municipality. It does have that language in there. Certainly uh I think it's ambiguous with respect to storm water management uh and obtaining walls um that may or may not be interpreted to cover uh the light
poles. Have you had any discussions with that within engineering? Has that come up at all? No, it doesn't because JCPNL sets the poles. They're in the town right away. Okay. town usually ends up adding them to their inventory for street
light. Okay. Uh payments on a quarterly basis or a monthly basis. Okay. We don't have street lights on every street, right? But we have them at intersections areas of difficulty on a roadway to light the roadway up. And I would say
this kind of fits that. Okay. Mr. Chairman. Yes. I will note that those light U fixtures are different from the others that are around the town in that area. So if in fact the power company is going
to maintain the street lights as they do typically in other areas. Um the question I would have is do they have those kinds of bulbs because they're they look like they're different fixtures. Well, they are LEDs. I mean they're they're gorgeous but I don't
know. That's not consistent with what else is in the 10 ship. Yeah, that could be hand. Yeah, we can handle that. Guess we could keep some bulbs in stock. So, you're saying we could handle that? That would not
be difficult. You're looking for the I'm looking for the call out. Uh, it was on the It was on the page. The lighting. It was on the lighting page. Yeah, it's on It's on the corner of your Oh, yeah.
We get something similar that JCPNL provides. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. No problem. That way they can maintain it. Okay, Mr. Chairman, did you have more questions? No, I'm I'm done. I had a few
questions, Mr. So, I have questions related to the two memos that were in our package from Chief Nun. And I'm sorry he's not here to ask these questions out, but uh our fire chief, Chief Nun, wrote two memos back in February of
2024. Uh I don't know how much your plan has changed since then. Uh but uh he said in with respect to the site inspection review, we recommend the board request the applicant address the excessive slopes. This this is this is
his wording. uh address the excessive slopes with the proposed subdivision of four lots as well as limited access without the traditional culde-sac. So perhaps the plans have changed since he wrote this memo and
correct. Yes. And you've had conversations with him. I I wish that he were here to to affirm whatever might have changed, but can you just describe whatever conversations you've had with him and how the plans may have changed? Right. Um Mr. Stewart did say during his testimony, he actually met with your
fire chief just a few weeks ago um and did address all of those comments and had your fire chief's approval as to the plans that are here this evening. I believe he also in one of the memo address had comments on the location of the hydrants. Was that addressed also in
the final plan? I believe it was. Yeah, we did. We do have a location of the hydra at the end of the right of the hammerhead and there is one existing one down on Mount Kemell A as well. Were they re if I may were
they requested were they requested were they relocated uh pursuant to the request back by in February of 2024 by Chief Nun if you know Mr. Chairman. Yes, I'm on the committee with Chief. Oh, okay. sat in
these relocated. It has. Okay, good. Thank you. Thank you. I can't really tell what the difference in the hammerhead is, but we do have different size ladder truck now. Okay. So, the ladder truck will be able to make that the the original ladder truck
that we have. I don't know. I I don't want to drive it back. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Okay, good. Uh so Chief Nun also asked about the 22 foot ride wide roadway. It uh the rightway now is 40 feet, but
what about the roadway? That's at excuse me, that's at 22 feet. So maybe Mr. Alleso knows um more about this, but the memo, this is the other memo, says the roadway width of 22 feet and no culdeac will limit fire
department access. So the hammerhead perhaps on the new ladder trucks off the culdeacide. No, the concern was that if there was parking on the streets, 22 foot wide street then cuts down to probably 12 foot. That's not a lot of
room for large apparatus to make the what I'm going to call the uh snake turn along lot. I don't know. I guess it's a lot 202. uh 2.05
2.05 in front of 2.05 or on the side of 2.0. I don't know where the front of the house is. Okay. It's an interesting architecturally. The front is facing towards Mount Kumbell a so this area here is what the concern was. And we're concerned about cars parked there and
whether or not there'd be the ability for fire trucks to articulate that turn. Yes. When cars are parked. Yes. And during our conversation that we had with the fire chief, um we did modify the drawing to have mountable block curb,
not your standard curb. Oh, okay. So, that was one of the solutions. And we did show just so the board knows, sorry, I'm going the wrong way. On sheet 13 gives our turning movement of the fire truck that was
requested. And this shows that we can make the turns going up the hill and do the turnaround with the hammerhead. And that's how we did size the hammerhead was based on that truck that was provided. And this is based on the assumption that there are no cars parked
in the roadway. Is that correct? That's correct. And I guess that would be up to the township to make sure that parking is not permitted there. That's correct. Okay. Great. Um I have uh one more question which is about the parking the
three parking spaces at the bottom of the hill for access to the trail. Uh why three? Why only three? That seems like a small number. Suppose you made it four or five or six. How would that
change? Well, we could expand on that. That's not an issue. I do believe during one of TCC meetings, it was basically determined that three would be acceptable. I don't know what the usage of the trail head is going to be, but three seems like a pretty small number. You're
certainly not going to get anybody parking anywhere else. We had an earlier plan that had four. We can add the fourth spot back. Um, but yes, I mean, this application has gone through significant reviews over and over and
over and and it was settled upon three, but we can up it to four. I mean, obviously, we don't want to go further down because then you have the driveway on the left and cars that would be backing out onto the ride of way if they were parked there. But, we can add one
more space. Just just so I'm clear, uh, we're all clear. Uh if you're going to add that one space, are we certain that will not add any further deviations by way of retaining wall height and or steep slope disturbance?
Good point. Um I don't think you're at a real steep point, but No, but I mean just by eye, it looks like you could stick a fourth one in there and not change the size of that retaining wall at all. Why they went to three? Should
Sorry, I'm still trying to get used to this computer. So, you can add one more. So, one more space. One more space and then have five foot from that still have five wall and they would not need any further
retaining wall height deviation in the enclosure. That's that's already there. That's already there. Yes. Answer. Yeah. Just want to make sure if that's what the board wants then uh the qu we have to make sure that if there's additional relief required it's considered a grant
right I was just making sure that does not affect any other other improvements as well but the fourth space will be fine. Okay. So yeah I yeah if it doesn't require a change in that retaining wall. Mr. I'll I'll note that the access to this
um township owned property that we currently own has a trail head just right across from Frederick Place and there's no park and there's no park right that's why you know three or four is probably sufficient. I know a lot of people from the neighborhood walk up there with their dogs and stuff. So I'm
I'm thinking three or four is probably okay. Yeah. Yeah. A couple years ago, there was conversation with the parks department and it was felt that if you were going to be hiking on this, you'd be hiking with two cars. You'd park one up on Jockey, not
growing, park one down here and you walk down the hill cuz walk the other way cuz going up going up about 300 ft by the time you get up to What's the fun in that exercise? You want cardio, right? Yeah, that's a
lot of cardio. Okay, that's all I had. Thank you, Mr. Just We are We can certainly continue with board member questions, but um I'm certainly we're going to have the applicant address uh the remaining reports. My plan was to make sure they address all the reports. I'm sure my
plan wasn't I'm not the only one who had that plan. Okay. But uh so now the applicant is aware of that plan. Applicant was aware but we were skipping back and forth. Sure. Right.
The board we jumped in with questions. So um Mr. Stewart, you had the opportunity to read obviously the TCC memo that was prepared by Mr. Phillips, the board's planner. Yes. Correct. that had the last revision date of April 4th,
2024 that recaped the meeting summary. Yeah, I believe uh items one through five that we completed and revised plans accordingly. Okay. So, those were already addressed in all of your comments and your presentation of the plan. Yes. Okay. And then the newest uh
review letter that we received actually earlier today that's from the environmental commission that's dated uh March 17, 2025. Um he had an opportunity to speak with the applicant. Correct. Correct.
And the applicant's willing to make the items listed in here as a condition of approval. Yes, that's that's fine. If I may follow up on that, Mr. Chairman. Yes, please do. I had some questions, too. So go ahead. No, go ahead. Go ahead. I was just going to ask for clarification uh uh with respect to that
stipulation for those stipulations. Uh I mean I guess part part of it is just from broad in a general sense uh these items will be agreed to subject to the review and approval of our I assume our engineer Mr. Hansen. Uh with respect to
the tree removal and replacement obligations, tree size and and species. Uh, and I guess uh I guess Dave, you're in charge of the bats, too. I guess is Well, yeah. So, in addition to the environmental commission
pretty much as well, there will be a point where we're going to have to have conversation as to you got to get the trees cut down by April 1st of next year or after September 30th of this year. Can't cut them down while they're
living in the trees and mating. Understood. Understood. Okay. So that helps me with respect to crafting any uh conditions of approval. But I I just said a question on how the
number of trees is calculated. Uh one there seems to be an error. I think you overestimated. You've counted uh five replacement trees counted for tree number two which is shown on the plans is not to be removed. Um uh so that seems like you've been o
over by five there. And then the other question I had was um on replacement trees and I'm not quite sure you know for trees of the over you know the the given size it's you know five trees instead of one. Have we have
you double counted those? Have they d I'll ask you Mr. Hansen. They counted one for each tree that to be removed or 80% of all the trees to be removed and then an additional five if they were over. Um is that is that how it's
supposed to be calculated? Yes. Okay. Okay. Well, it's the total amount of trees, right? Take 70% of that, right? And you put the the ratios into effect for the specimen trees. Um Okay. So, but that's in addition to the 80% of the
Okay. Okay. Okay. I do I do note there are some trees in the the planting count that uh are oversized to what we require, but they're looking at different stages of of growth to make it not look like it's
uniform and everything's at six feet, right? So they've thrown some bigger trees in there to kind of buffer it a little bit so that doesn't look like everything is fresh plant. It looks like some stuff has been there for a while. But the EC is correct in there that
there is no provision for bonus replacement trees credit for bigger trees. Right. Okay. So, but they've stipulated to the EC. Although, as I say, I would I would certainly be minal taking the five trees off there because you put
one on that to me that shouldn't be there. County. Yeah, I guess we'll I guess we'll Yeah, we'll do that. Okay. Which is then leads me to another question on maint maintenance of those trees. We often in uh when we have
developers and their tree requirement replacement trees, we require that they maintain those trees or if they die to replace them within a certain number of years. Um most of many of the trees here of most of greatest concern are the ones very nicely in the plan put in to screen
the existing houses. Um who's respon what happen to be on those lots that are going to be assigned at the township? Um, who's responsible for ma maintaining those trees? The which would be the township? No. No.
Well, if the trees the many of the many of the screening trees there are on that lot 2011, right? The one you're right by your hand. Okay. The open space would be us after maintenance bond. Okay. After two years. Okay. The other trees, the
majority of which are not in the rightway, would be part of the landscape maintenance required of the individual home. But there'd be a maintenance bond, two-year maintenance bond for those and then the township would be responsible for after that. Okay. Okay.
Is is two years enough for that maintenance bond? Because trees, you know, can look healthy but actually not be not be doing very well. Yeah. So I mean is two years enough to determine whether the tree has fully taken root?
It may be an issue of uh challenge of practice but well statute. Yeah. That's that's current practice. the with with respect to offsite well with with respect to
guarantees and um what not just the guarantees post performance performance bonds and guarantees Mr. Chairman. Yeah. Yes. Speak to trees. So the township very generously offered uh trees to be
planted for residents uh was it last year or the year before? Um, we have a lot of voracious deer in the area who love to come down Mount Kimell and I think all the deer are strip the bark off of those brand new trees. So, um, no
matter where you plant, my recommendation is that we make sure that they um have some protection so that they don't um get killed by the deer having a snack. Um I even some of those
planted along uh in my neighborhood, Harter Road, Aspen Way, and all they've been stripped already by the deer. So um that would kill them pretty quickly. I I would like to point out to everyone
that I was particularly pleased to see in the plan that a lot of those trees that are coming out and are to be replaced or 80% of them to be replaced are the atlanths which is you know invasive and we'd love to see those go anyway. So it's really nice to see them replaced by
you know quality native trees instead of our uh the tree so it doesn't get Yeah. So, I see there's also a lot of uh uh what is it? Um devil's walking stick in
the area, too. That will come out as part of the normal landscaping, which is nice to see. That'll be cleared out because that's been a big problem um on that whole hillside. So, is that does that need to be a stipulation? Tree protection. The tree I think Mr. H was saying that tree screens are part of the
performance. Okay. All right. I just want to make sure that we don't plant them and have them dead in a year. When we did the tree planting on Southgate when we did the road work, those trees are guaranteed for two years and they put the tree bags up instead of the
scrape protection on there because we planted them coming out of a drought. We had to water them for a few months until they went dormant. And probably in the next month, we're going to be out there filling bags again just to give them a jump start if we don't get a lot of
rain. So, but at a point the bags are going to come down and if the trees are still small enough, we'll probably end up putting scrape guards back on. Yeah. And that's mainly an issue in the fall. The buck kind of that should take care
of it. Continuing with reports. I think those are all the reports I have. Unless you have something we don't have, Mr. uh for council. Well, I right
here that's for me to remember the the the um uh there is an environmental commission report January 2024 certainly preceded uh the addendum, but I I understood maybe I was wrong the addendum to be an addendum and uh uh
that at least some if not all of the prior report may still have applicability. You want to address that? You have a copy of it, council, because I never received that one. When I received this one tonight, that was my question with the addendum. So,
well, I have one written actually. They gave you mine back. That's a new one. I'm sorry. Yeah. Feel free to take this and I'll be You have a clean one.
I'll take mine back. Thank you, board member. Vice Chairman, milk and bread. I think it's already covered. Everybody's buying eggs that want some Trader Joe's one is before a
certain time you're allowed one cart at 3:49. [Laughter] Yeah, that's off the record. I think you have addressed Musl is with most I'll be
candid. I saw the historic district and the dig that was mentioned earlier, right? And much of that earlier report dealt with the fact that they didn't have a storm water management uh report available or or the tree replacement plan that wasn't they didn't have available. I
think all of which have been addressed since then. So in reviewing it, Mr. Stewart, I guess there's just uh really two things which was under recommendations one and two, right? Which would be conditions of approval
with the uh engineer engineer review. That's correct. When you say one and two, I'm sorry. One and two under missing reports. All right. And storm water soil erasion. We already talked about number three as part of the updated one. We already
addressed number four, number five and number six. So really it would just be stipulating council to the missing uh reports and the storm water soil erosion. I guess some of the reports were already provided but correct the the but so basically we're stipulating
to both environmental commission reports. Yeah. Yes. Okay. Well, just because in under the missing reports one uh certainly the uh landscape plan and individual lot grading plans that's not
subject now that those follow as we discussed earlier, right? When uh when they apply for the grading, right? Okay. Right. So they're not missing at this time. No, they're forthcoming. Right. They're forthcoming. Right. the the but
if I understand correctly then the uh the the dig per the uh request of the environmental commission is being stipulated. I mean it doesn't have to be a dig. It can be a survey sounded like it was probably the more reasonable approach.
Right. Right. Archaeological survey. Yeah. What I mean they don't have to dig up the land to do it. Okay. And uh and so that we do have confirmation that dark sky compliance on the lighting that is achievable.
And we also discussed changing the fixture to match what JCPAL provides. And I guess it was uh the utility authority had a report which obviously they'll they'll have to comply with all
outside agencies. So yeah, I think it you'll you'll you'll be able to comply with the conditions set forth in that. Is that the one that's from like 2023 or 2024? This is March 14, 2025. Yeah, we just got that.
That's the south. Okay, you got it. Okay. I don't think I've had any other reports, but any other questions from the Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ben? Yeah, I didn't finish before. I want to go back to the walls for a second. Um, just for
clarification. So, no wall will be greater than six feet. Correct. Okay, great. Now, I want to try and if I'm if I if I'm in my car and I'm driving up the street from Mount Kebble and on the right I come up and there's a on the
Jordan there's a wall. At that point, the wall is below the road to the right to see it. Right. That's correct. And then as I drive around, the wall on the right starts to rise above and there'll be a six-foot wall to my right. As I go
around, it'll drop down to bend. The sixoot wall drops down. The sixft wall, it rises to my right above above my car. No, only when you get up here. When I get to the Yeah. When I get around the bend
going into the bend, it it drops down six feet. And then as you go around the wall on the right, it drops down. I go around the wall comes up and then the wall on the left as I get up to the turnaround area that will be be below me as well.
Yes. On the left. Correct. So when I go now, if I go down from that area to the right, there's this and go around. There's there's a house there, lot three. And I'm concerned about the
lights from the cars. I'm sorry. They're going to be at the level of the second floor. Do you mean lot 2.03? Yes. No, the lock down on on Mount Ke. on Mount Campbell. So, the cars coming around the bend will be like at
the level of the second floor of the house. You got to move the uh if you go to the ar if you go to the landscape plan, they're putting dense Yeah. plantings in the areas to break the headlights. All right. That's my question. So, okay. So, that homeowner
shouldn't be concerned about lights from the cars going into their h into their windows. Okay, great. Thank you. Um, okay. That that's all I have. Thank you. Any other questions from the board?
Yes, Mr. Listen, public question. Well, I would like to hear are there any questions from the professionals? Anything further? No. Uh just as a quick question and I think we've already confirmed that but just to make sure because part of the agreement was that the plan has to
be substantially in compliance with similar to the uh uh concept plan which we haven't seen. So I'll just ask you is it okay in your opinion it is okay fine. Okay. Then if there no more questions here, I'll ask are there any questions
of this witness from the uh from the public and please uh come to the the state your name and address and uh and again the questions are questions for the for the witness. Um comments will come later. You have opportunity to
comment later. So hi my name is Amanda Wilberg. I'm at 249 Mount Kemell. Um the property that is just below the four properties that are being built and I'm sorry the address 249 Mount Kemell Lav
that the one in the upper right that one right there. Yep. Yeah. That's slot 2.06 I believe. Okay. No her property. Her property her property right on Mount Kemell. Why is it Oh, one
up. I'm sorry. That's I'm sorry. 2.86 26 is el not three. Thank you. Okay. My first question was um you said that it's compliant with RA15. Um but that's only after you broke
up the lot cuz it was one house before, right, that was allowed on an RA15, but then after you broke it up into five lots. Now, under that in the five lots, now it's compliant, but it wouldn't have been under the old RA the old um zoning.
Correct. Like you said, it's compliant where you could have the four houses because it's compliant to RA15. Is that correct what you said? I believe the prior zone was for 3 acre lots, right? So that there would be one house that would be allowed
versus now that there are four houses allowed on that same property. Is that correct? That's correct. Yeah. Okay. So now with the reszoning now it's compliant, but it wouldn't have been before, right? That's correct. Okay. Um
so I've looked at the old plans that I, you know, when you had um the town houses and um it appears that the road that is being built behind my house has gotten closer to my property, not
further away. And um I was wondering if that was I mean was the board aware of that or you thought it was the same because it looks closer in comparison to the plans that I have from the old plans.
That's a question for the engineer, correct? Yes, for the engineer. Did it get closer to my house or was it further away? If I may though for a moment, Steve, just as a point of order, the old plan that she's referring to went in front of a different board. So that
would have been zoning board, not planning board. And those plans were denied. There was litigation settlement that ensued. And this is a brand new application tonight. Okay. In front of this board based on the plans that are
submitted. So, I don't have with me the old denied plans because they're irrelevant now because that matter is closed. That was in front of a different board. Um, so I, you know, not to sound evasive, but there's really no way now.
We just would be 100% relying on his memory if what you're saying is accurate or not accurate, and we'd be referring to plans that aren't even part of the record. Okay. If I may on that, Mr. chairman. All that's true. Uh notwithstanding same. If he remembers,
he remembers. If he doesn't, he doesn't. The board could understands the context of it and the fact that it's been reszoned. It's different now. So, but I was asking about the history. Why he can't answer the question is my point. If you remember, I just don't want you to guess. I'm not If he can answer,
Right. Right. Right. Yeah. You can answer it in my opinion. Yeah. So, you can't remember. I was waiting for reports there, but yes, I I do recall it was shifted slightly closer to your property. The
exact I do not recall. Like why? We don't know. Just basically because of configuration of the uh different style of a home compared to townhouse. Can I ask that the road be moved away from my house? Uh no. Well, basically because of the configuration of these homes and
working with the grades, this works out very very well and reduces the amount of disturbance on the properties. It reduces them, but you already have several disturbances and and variances. Would it be a problem to add one more so that the road is further away from my
house, my children, my pets? It's not that simple. It may not be that simple, but can it be done? Is it possible? My job was to reduce the amount of design waiverss and variances on this property as much as possible and that's
what I did. Sure. So, it is possible. Um, okay. So, now that the road is closer, I've noticed that the light slide that you had, am I correct? And if we can go back to light side asking a
question about the lights. Sorry, wrong way again. There you go. So, where I see the the shapes, the lights are shading h are going to be shining on half my property at night. Is that correct by me looking
at that? No, that's not correct. What we are doing here is we are in compliance with the zoning ordinance as far as illumination and like I said earlier is a gently illuminating the roadway. Um, and the spillage
is meets zoning. Um, as far as what we have here is a 0.1 foot candle along your property line at the maximum which would be right in this section here and then beyond that is zero. So the
spillage coming from this light pole is minimal. So what are those those shapes that are on half my property? I don't understand. I think it helps. You might want to look closer. I think it's I I don't want to speak for anybody. They're all zeros. Yeah. So that's showing that there's no
light in all those areas. That's correct. Yes. Okay. So there's no light spilling. You're required to take measurements that far. Okay. All right. That was very confusing because it looks like it's covering that. Okay. So there's no light. Now, is there some
kind of requirement for an amount of space between the edge of a property, an existing property, and a newly built roadway? No, there is not a restriction. So on any property that exists, one a town
could build a road right on that property's line. That's correct. Okay. But if you were to build a house, what would be the amount of uh footage that you would have to build a space between
a edge of a property and a house? Let me just get to our zoning schedule, which was on page one. Like there's got to be some kind of limit between an edge of a property and a new house for a sideyard.
Minimum sideyard is 20 ft. So a house would have to require 20 ft, but a roadway does not require any footage. It It's like touching my property. Is that correct? Um okay. the parking in the trail. Um,
is that allowed overnight? That would be town property. So, it would be up to the municipality to decide. The wall that is facing my house because there's going to be like if this is what
I now see from my backyard, there will now be a If we could Do you mind marking that for reference purposes? No. What What should I mark it with? Oh, that's fine. I like we'll just refer to it as
uh 01 so that we have a a record. Okay. So when you're asking a question which is fine based on the picture this way we you know have a record of it. Okay. So I'm trying to understand looking out my back door
there would be a sixoot wall correct that I would see with lights and a guard rail right right here. Now, correct. If if I may, um, can you just confirm can one, can we let the engineer actually
see the picture maybe a little closer, but two, can you just confirm when the picture was taken and what it represents as far on your property? So, this is just so we better understand. Wait, wait, wait, wait. I'm sorry. We get we get unfortunately we got to
procedures but or maybe we have to swear in but but but yeah if you can raise your right hand. Yep. Do you swear to God or affirm testimony you're about to give the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Yes. Thank you. And um when approximately did you take
the photograph that we've marked as exhibit 01? A few weeks ago like whenever there was snow last I kn when I I knew that this meeting was going to come out. So I took the picture. Is it an accurate depiction of what presently exists in that view? Not was with absent the snow. Thankfully, yes.
Yes. I I apologize for adding the thankfully. Yeah. But but uh um the uh I like the warmer weather. Uh the the um uh and you're back and you took it. Uh all right. I think that actually
sufficiently identifies it for just if we could follow up. Can you just confirm where you were standing? Um, behind your house like Yes. If you look right in the middle of my back of my house, like right in the middle. Yes. Right there.
Okay. So, that's just straight. Yes. From the back of your house. Thank you. That's helpful. Okay. So, that gives you an idea where on the roadway. So, that would be right in this section here. Let me just zoom. And I would see a sixoot wall. Correct. That's what I'm going to check right now.
One more zoom. There we go. So, so yes, basically right here about 20 ft from your property line as you're looking out your back door. Right in this section here is probably about 20 ft away from your property line will be that way. Now,
when you say 20 ft, since it's on a slope, I mean, if we're talking about like Pythagorean theorem situation, it's not really 23 20 ft, right? Like, because we're going at a slope. So, when you're saying 20 ft, like it's 20 ft, but it's actually much closer than 20
ft. Like, do you know what I'm saying? Like, when you're talking about a triangle, right? I understand. you're saying 20 ft. It will feel like if you're standing, if I'm standing here and something's 20 ft away, but it's going up at a slope, it's going to be a
lot closer because when you I mean, you know what I'm saying with like you've got the right angle, you have So, I'm looking and 20T is really like I don't know 6 10 feet away from me. No, that's not correct. This 20t is horizontal
dimension, not a not a slope dimension. So on a slope dimension, what are we talking slope dimension? What you're talking about basically triangle this what I just stated was a horizontal dimension. Okay. Okay. If
you're looking upward, it would actually appear to be further because that would get then be the longer length. Okay. Okay. When I say 20 ft, that's the horizontal from your property line to the wall approximately in that area.
Okay. up a slope. It's going to become a longer dimension. Okay. But still, it's the 6ft wall with a guardrail on top. It's a 6ft wall. And then there's a guide rail that's going to be probably another 8 n ft away from that further
onto the property onto my like closer to my property. Further away from your back door. Okay. So, there's going to be the wall than the guardrail. That's correct. Now, because the road is like touching my property, especially in that corner, there's not going to be any room to put
any trees between my property and the road. Is that correct? Again, that area behind your home, directly behind your home is a fairly large area to I'm not talking about there. I'm getting to that. And as you go away from your home down towards the
corner of the property, there's a uh slight difference between the rightway line and your property line. Probably about 3 to four feet I believe it would be. Okay. But there's no place to put like you can't put trees there. Like you can't put trees to block anything. Like
my pool is right in that corner. So there's no possible way to put trees. Correct. Yeah. I I have to get to the landscaping plan which now I definitely need some assistance from our IT expert. Yes.
Stop share while we're doing that. It's okay for me to keep this as far. Yeah. And there's a red tail hawk nest right in that tree. I thought that was cute and I was hoping that that tree wouldn't be destroyed, but it probably will. So, right in the middle of the roadway, I guess by red
tailed hawk. I did swear yet, but we'll keep this as part of the official record. Oh, back to I'll email it back. Scan an email back to you. Oh, scan it. Email it to you. Okay. She doesn't trust me. I'm
going to give her We know who's in charge. I know my place. Good job, son. Okay, get ready, Fred. So, this is this is in the package. And am I correct in saying that this is
the plan, but this doesn't h there's no legal obligation to do this. Is that correct? Yes, there is. I'm sorry. You might have to wait at a time. Sure. So, Mr. Stuart, what's up on the screen
is um the uh tree replacement plan with the landscape. Well, the tree replacement plan. This is a page. That's what I'm trying to get to. Can you scoot it over here? There you go. L102 and this was prepared by Domo
Architecture. This is the landscaping plan that was submitted to the board and is dated January 16, 2025. That's correct. And to answer the neighbor's question, how many trees are being showed planted in between the rear
property line and the right away? Uh, numerous trees. I can count them. There's one, two, three, four. There's 11 of the darker circle, which I can get to the key in a minute here. Evergreens, which are evergreens.
Yep. What kind of evergreens? spruce and white. It's listed on the plan. Northern spruce and white pine. Although Norway, I'm sorry. Norway spruce. Norway spruce are the ones that EC has asked not to plant and replace
those if possible. We will replace them based on the right environmental commission's report. And then there's one, two, three, four of the lighter circle ones, which I'll give you the uh name of
them in a second. And then there's two more near the corner of the property, which are the uh lighter shaded ones that are not circular, but there are very few like I could think I can see like four. Let me look on this
one. one, two, three that are placed right around my pool, which is right here. So, people are gonna be just driving by my pool and looking right in because there's four trees and not even like there's a section where there's no trees that are blocking through away
from my house. Is that correct? I do believe you have some trees on your property as well. Not like from where the pool is. Not very like it's like shrubs. It's like not like not not anything that's going to provide any cover. We
provided substantial amount of evergreens and other trees to basically shield the wall from the rear of your home. Yeah. But not not from the whole rear of my home. There's gaps. There's a small gap of approximately 15 to 20
feet, which is a big chunk of the pool, right? Okay. Um, so with all that being said, with the destruction, like since it is the road is basically going to be butdding up against my pool,
um, who is responsible if, say, my pool caves in or if the disturbance messes up my, um, patio around the pool, who who do I who is responsible for that? The the roadway is not butdding right up against your pool. The roadway is
approximately 12 to 13 ft. The roadway itself is 12 to 13 ft away from your property line. I don't think your pool is right up against your property. The wall I'm sorry, the wall is up. You said three feet away from my property line. And it's very close. It's not very far
away. The pool is not very far from the property line. It's It's right up pretty close against it. the difference between the rightway line and okay now when I state the rightway line that's the actual property that the
roadway is within so the road itself will be basically 9 ft from that rightaway line to the curb but the wall won't but the wall will be basically along the rightway line which is three
feet from my property with no trees in between that and my property which is allowable. Sure. I understand restriction on that. I understand it's being allowed. Um but I Okay. My question is also so now you're building a wall
here, right? If I want to build because I know that there's like you have to like move your walls a certain amount if you're building another retaining wall. So, if I wanted to build retaining wall on my property, right, and it was how
far would I be able to because this is a six foot tall wall, right? There's a certain amount of space where you have to wait before you can build your retaining wall. Six foot wall. So, it's 6 feet. So from this area, like I can't
build my own retaining wall on my own property within 6 ft of your retaining wall cuz it's butdding up against my property. Is that correct? That's not correct. No. Well, you just said that it needs to be six feet, right? By ordinance, the higher of the two walls
governs the separation of the walls, right? So, if it's 6 feet and there's only 3 ft away from my property, I wouldn't be able to put a retaining wall on my property because it's not in that space, right? Like, am I reading that right?
Right. So, that's what I'm saying. Like, I think a lot of problems would be solved if the road was moved. Well, there's also a lot of um ifs with that uh question because there's a lot of issues at hand there depending on the
separation of the walls such as a type of walls where you can actually do a wall that is a certain type of structure where you can be right on the boundary line have no effect on the upper wall and vice versa. You can have a different
type of wall construction constructed such as a modular block wall that needs geog grid where you have to be typically six feet away from the line at least with the modular block wall because of the geo grid behind the wall. So there's all different scenarios that would have to come into play on that. So they
answer that question. There's no definite answer to be a yes or no answer to you on that question. Okay. Um, now what if JCPNL, you said, "Well, JCPNL will take care of it." If what if they don't have something similar? We're just like assuming that
they have something similar. What if they put their regular polls in like they you know what I'm saying? Like what if they don't? Is there some kind of situation? Oh, and wait, I'm sorry. I got to go back to the one. If there is some destruction to my property, who do
I contact? Like who does who do I who does that go to? Is that town or is that you know like say something you know messes up my pool, my patio, whatever. Who do I contact? Cuz it's really close to my property. Like it's not far. It's
3 feet away. Well, the proposal is not to go on your property at all. Sure. But who do I call if it does happen? Because 3 feet is like, you know, this far. So it's not like, you know, like something can fall
like very easily. Crack in your pool. Yeah, the crack in my pool. Folks, unfortunately, we're fortunately as I said before, we do need to have a protocol procedure municipal as you saw the public one at a time, please. So who do
I call? That's the thing. But who's responsible for my destruction on my property when something like that happens? It would be no different than any other construction. If you allege that there was damage caused to your property as a result of construction as a result of this project, you would
contact the applicant aka the owner who would then contact the contractor. And obviously contractors have to be insured and there are certain steps and proofs and so forth that have to go through with any allegation of damage. Obviously
something easy like a tree falling over is pretty easy to resolve issues of whether or not there's settlement vibration cracks, pools, things of this nature would be very facts sensitive. But it'd be no different than if any
other construction was happening next door to any other house you were doing in addition, a neighbor, etc. It that would be your protocol. Okay. What will the wall look like that I'm going to be seeing looking out of my my back of my house? Uh it's a modular
block wall and it's uh from what I understand it's going to be a earthy tone. So earthy tone module. When you say modular block that can mean a lot of things. Do you have like a specific like do you have a picture of it or
No, I do not. Okay. And again, our position is you won't see much of it once the trees are planted. For some areas, but some areas I'm going to have a direct looking like I going to look at it directly from my pool. Like there's not going to be anything
blocking it. So, um I guess that's all. Thank you. Allan Galpin Five Armstrong Road. My question is this. Who is responsible for removing snow on this
roadway that goes up and has a 15 degree uh slope to it? Who is responsible for moving removing snow in that area? Is it the township? Is it uh the uh homeowners
association? Who exactly is responsible for moving snow and putting um um salt on or the like on icy surfaces? Who is responsible for that? The road is being dedicated to the
township. So that would be the township. Be the township. Is that your answer? Yes. Correct. That is the answer. Okay. Where do you think the township is going to put several feet of snow that they are
plowing? Where are they going to put it? Are they going to put it off the road on the side of the road or are they going to push it all the way down to the bottom and put it into a truck? How is the uh township to remove all this snow?
They just push it to the side or are they going to remove it all together? Depends on the amount of snow. But as far as this uh roadway is, it's 22 feet wide. It's a 40 foot wide rightway. That leaves you with 18 ft of area beyond the
pavement where the plows can push the snow along with to this drawing right now. uh up at the top ends of the hammerheads right here and often here there's a larger area especially at the end of the road that's in the right of
way still right in this section here which is probably about a 25 by 40 foot area where snow can be accumulated there as well. If I understand you correctly, you're going to move it to the side just like on any other plow situation on Uhhuh.
And where are you going to put the sidewalks? Uh, no sidewalks are being proposed. I'm sorry, I didn't get your answer. No sidewalks are being proposed. No sidewalks. Where are the kids going to play?
Not in the road. How they where are they going to meet the bus? We are providing for recreational purposes uh plan shows three, but we're going to four stalls here along with a hiking
trail going up into the open space area. Is that for kids? Sure. Kids hike, too. Um and so you there's no sidewalks and so they got all this snow on the side. Somebody wants to walk down and pick up
their kids after school or whatever. How do they do that? Don't know. Okay, let's try let's try something else then. Um, can I answer your question? Okay. I'm not sure what the bus routes are going to be on this site.
There won't be a bus if there's probably won't be. If there's no kids, there's nobody but they can meet them down. Okay. So, in order for the children to be up here in their houses and play, they've got to come down to the parking lot area. Is that right? Did I get you
right on that? We did. There's going to be areas within their yard. How are they going to get there? They're not pure pants. There's going to be areas within their yard as well. All right. Given given the very the 15 degree slope
in a very icy conditions and the kids are playing at the bottom down there by the parking lot. How going to keep cars slip sliding down there and
endangering um a variety of assets including children at the bottom? How are we going to keep that from happening? The 15% slope is allowable by the residential site improvement standards
and it's not a 15% slope for the entire roadway. As you approach the intersection, that slope does diminish down to zero. Basically at 2% I believe it is. Okay. For safety reasons, sir, then I would like you to answer this question. Where would you advise the
township to place the tail hook so cars don't kill people? You know what a tail hook is? I believe you're referring to a hook
that's on an aircraft carrier. I am. Yeah. That's not necessary on a road such as this because it does meet the standard. Yeah, I I find your answer a little. It's I haven't sworn you in. Public
comment later, please. Okay. Thank you. Only appropriate public comment, please, as well. Hi, I'm Jill Kramer. I live at 269 Mount Kimell Avenue. The road coming off Mount Kimell Avenue, is that north of the old firehouse foundation?
Yes. Is anything being done with that foundation as such as Is it just remaining as is? Uh, no. I have to get to my other drawing here. Another item.
Yeah. right here. Okay. Okay, that would be basically in this area right in here. Here are the walls that are still existing. There's like two sets of
walls, one higher, one lower. And we are grading off to those walls. So basically um right now there is a uh a depression in that area. Mhm. And we are basically filling in that depression area up to
those walls. Well, I access my driveway from that road. Yes, that is correct. And that's the only way that I can get onto my driveway. I can I swear you so this will count? Sure. Uh if you raise your right hand, you swear to God you're
about to give us the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Yes. Thank you. Please proceed with your question that may have some comments with it. Okay. Yeah. Will I be able to access my
driveway coming from the north? Yes. Your access remains in place even though it's within the front area of those walls just near that front area. Your access will remain in place. We avoided that.
Okay. So that won't be built up. So that I Okay. Also, I will be I guess crossing right in front of where people will be coming down from there from the road that you have built onto Mount Kimell Avenue. You realize that you have to go
fairly far out into the road to be able to see the traffic coming from the north. Oh, we meet the sight distance requirements. We do have uh some clearing going within the intersection
area which would be on the north side of our proposed road right in this section here and we are clearing accordingly to allow for proper sight distance. Okay. Okay. All right. Thank you. Any other questions from the public?
Okay, we'll close this. Oh, yes. I just have one of the whole residents brought up a question and I guess now I'm a little confused. I saw in the plan that you're purchasing ready rocks. The wall going to be built out of ready rock and if it is, is it you said that you're not sure what
wall you're building, but the plan says ready rock. So, I'm wondering if there's a ready rock spec that you picked out. Maybe we could also some of the concern if we understood with like split face block wall or something and you have a feel for what it is that might help the homeowner understand it's not going to
be ugly wall in their backyard. Understood. I don't have the specific uh cut sheet on that showing the exact model of ready rock. The ready rock wall is a larger block wall still consider
considered modular block. Um, typically they're uh the face is 2 feet by 3 or 4 feet by approximately 3 ft deep. So, will it be something like the ready rock wall? Yes. So, the homeowner would go on and the website, she'll get a sense of
what a ready rock wall looks like. Some of them aren't pretty. Like, looking at it, it looks like we can't go. We used Ready Rock uh at the Hillside Firehouse for Danning Ross. It was great.
I mean, I'm sure we could use something something similar to that and uh we'll uh take a good look at it. Something very similar to that. That's acceptable. Okay. Would the applicant stipulate to using ready rack, ready rock or
something substantially similar subject to the review and approval of our board engineer? Yes. I guess it may be a component of aesthetics there, but for his review, they're all the same. They're all used. Not in the eye of the
beholder, Dave. Yeah. They're different colors, right? Okay. Thank you. You're welcome, Rick. Yes. Oh, another question. Yes. Hi. Uh I'm Michael Kramer. Uh I'm also at 269 Mount Kemell Avenue. Again, to follow
up, uh one of my main concerns is the old Firehouse Foundation. Now, I heard what the plans are, but my main concern is the old foundation that during the course of you know
construction is there is some damage and that foundation starts to crumble. Again, what guarantees do I have that that will be stabilized somehow? Um, again, based on our plan, we are
filling in that area up to the wall height. So, basically, we're eliminating the uh depression in front of the wall. So, we're filling into that wall area. So, the wall is going to be not as high. The top of the wall will still be
visible, but the wall will just not be as high. Well, the top of the wall is also a concern of mine because that if that was to collapse, that would endanger that part of my property. It will not collapse because you're filling
up to it. Okay. So, you're filling up to the height of the existing wall. Yes. Okay. Okay, this will close public comment. Is there a public question? I think sorry,
not comments, right? Um some comments that Yeah. Well, comments that comes later, right? Um so does that conclude your testimony or what you want you want to for the engineer? It does. Okay. I think
it's important that we bring Mr. Tobia the planner to address a few comments. Okay. Thank you. And will he be working his own computer? Yes, we know. We know. Okay. We're aware. Yeah, you are. I lose.
Um, speaking of the microphone, close to the microphone, please. Thank if we can, Mr. Mr. Toby, I know you've uh testified before this board on several occasions, but can you just confirm for Mr. Chairman's satisfaction that all your licenses are current as of this evening?
Yes. So, still a licensed professional planner in the state of New Jersey with experience now totaling uh 44 years, I hate to say. Um many appearances here in town. You all know I live in town as well. um and appearances
uh before about 200 other agencies of this nature over the years as well as in superior court and municipal courts every now and then. Okay. Okay. Um so if I'm accepted, Mr. Please proceed. Yeah. Thank you. So I just wanted to give you a couple more things. Um Fred Stewart
did a nice job explaining the walls and remember we have to justify variances here. Um and what he said is there's a need to build level driveways, a need to build level roads, um need to properly grade the site, and a need to avoid what
we would call feathering down the grade if we didn't have the walls, which would just mean more tree removal and more sight disturbance. He also said correctly, these walls are only going one to two feet above the permitted threshold of 4T.
Recall that if these walls were in the backyard or the sideyard, six feet permitted anyway. Okay. Um, so they're minor differences. We all have seen walls that are going up 10, 15, 20 feet. And those are the walls we in the planning community really try to avoid.
The other thing that I wanted to pull your coattails to is the reason we regulate wall height is we don't like looking at walls. Okay? When they get too big, they become a visual intrusion. Um so what's happened here just so you
all understand is our front two walls um on the plan um are um on the order of 120 to 190 ft away from Mount Kemell Avenue. No one's going to see him. I'm
sorry. 120 to 190 190. Okay. Okay. Um and moreover, as you know, this site goes up sharply. They're 27 23 to 27 feet above the grade. Okay, so we're talking about horizontal distance and
vertical distance. Um, which means they're going to be so far out of view from Mount Kemell as to constitute no detriment whatever to the traveling public. When you go to the walls at the back of the site, which are built, we we call
those the uh the roadway walls um around the curve and then the one down near the hammerhead, they get to be over 300 ft from Mount Kimell. And the conclusion of course must be we're we're not disturbing anybody with
holes that high uh with that with walls that far from the street. Those walls are um 70 feet to 76 feet above the grade of Mount Kemell Avenue. This is a site, in other words, where we really don't have a concern about walls
providing a visual detriment to the neighborhood. Some of the walls, as you heard, won't even be visible from people living on the site because of the way the land slopes and also um because of the plant list that's been proposed by this
applicant. We mentioned a few of the plants um but we're up to u 65 deciduous trees, 45 evergreens which are being planted on the site. As Mr. Hansen said before, um, some of
those are really oversized. We're going with spruce and pines that are up to 12 feet rather than the standard 6 to 8 foot nursery stock. So, we're landscaping this can't be seen anyway. Um, Mr. Warner, the legal stuff here is
that for all the reasons that Mr. Stewart and I expressed, goals A, C, G, I, and M are met. Okay. of the of the goals of the municipal land use law, I'm sorry, are met by by the proposal.
Um, I got to correct Mr. Warner. I've been working on this since 2018. Hasn't been three years. It's been seven. Okay. Uh, we have a settlement agreement. As you know, this applicant's been before TCC twice with this
plan. Um, just this plan, never mind the old townhouse plan. So the 40 foot right ofway is what TCC wanted. 22 foot cartwway is what they wanted. Um this specific lot line arrangement was talked
about a lot during technical review. That's how we get this sliver of property um to the uh northeast of the site in permanent open space adjacent to lot three. And also the parking lot area down below
um was configured this way because of input between TCC and this applicant. Um someone wondered before why we had a sixth lot and it was only because the parking lot lot known as lot 206 could
not physically connect with the main lot on the southerntherly portion of the site because the road cuts through the two. Otherwise, that would have been one big piece of open space. Uh the open space in total is about 2.9 acres. If
you ever hike this area, this is not only open space, it's connected open space. Okay? It is going to connect to your Chucky Hill. Chucky Chucky Hollow Top Top Preserve or something. Chucky
Hollow. There's another name for a top preserve. Chucky Hollow Top. Um, and we don't want people parking on Frederick's and walking across Mount Kimell to get to a trail head. This prevents them from doing it. This at least allows them an option to do it. So, we think that's uh
safer. Anytime folks you can get more open space, grab it, right? That's that's what we like in the planning community. And so, for all those reasons um and Mr. Warner's uh list of conditions, you know, we think this is finally a winning solution for this
property. Thank you, Mr. Toby. Any questions? No. I have a question. Yes. Were sidewalks ever considered in this plan? Well, no. Because um you know, it's four lots. It's so small. Um as a development on
the road, just like I I live over on Overlook Road. Um we walk down the street with caution and that's the choice we made. and and TCC I might add. I guess as long as there's no So I was
struck by Mr. McAlvin's comments. As long as there's no snow piled on either side of the roadway, um walking in the right ofway might work as you're coming around the curve if there's oncoming traffic. Otherwise, you might have a
problem. It seems a little uncomfortable to me. does not seem like a child-friendly area. It's um we got to take care of our own kids. Of course, the entirety of the nearby Spring Brook neighborhood, Mr. Mel can can correct me if I'm wrong. I don't think there's a
sidewalk in the whole development. Um there's a nice side to that, too. My house, it's the same with with my street on Overlook. You slow down, you're out in the street, you know, you're waving the people. It's a very social thing. Um and it works. Um, well, I'm on a 23 foot
wide road. This is 22. And you you learn what Mr. Warner before called proper protocol. Okay. I'm being triangular. For what it's worth, for what it's worth, my role, for what it's worth, I'm a big proponent
of sidewalks in general, but I think uh we have too many places in the township where we put sidewalks in residential areas that don't really need them and don't put them in places where we need them, like along Mount Kimell. That's where we have to concentrate. So I I
don't I I live on a street without a sidewalk and I wouldn't want one at this point for many of the same reasons. Any other questions? Any question? Yes. Well, if our engineer planner don't have
any I show you by if I understood the bases for your retaining wall variance planning arguments and correct me if I'm wrong, they would be both the C1 undue hardship as well as the C2 benefit substantially outweighing the detriments
and satisfying one or more of the purposes of the MLUL under section two. Is that correct? This is correct. Um, recall uh C the statute C1B specifically focuses focuses on
exceptional topographic conditions, right? And and Mr. Stewart explained it 22% property sloped all the way up the hill. We knew when we went through TCC we would have wall height variances. Um, and we had to design them of course, but so it speaks to C1, Mr. Warner and we've
mentioned the benefits that would satisfy C2 and with respect to the seep seep seep steep slope um uh disturbances those are design waiverss under section the standard
under section 51B of the MLU which is somewhat akin to the positive criteria for undue hardship. Um, uh, can you just, uh, uh, what's Oh, my name.
Now I'm going to forget my name, too. The It's a steep slope off the edge there. The the the uh Can you just uh uh give us your your quick version of uh the 51B standard and the undue hardship standard with respect to steep slope
disturb? Right. So, Mr. Stewart covered it nicely. the the so-called design exception can be granted by undue hardship or a finding that it would be impractical, right, to strictly enforce your design standards. Design standards are generally viewed by us planners as
of lesser import than strict zoning controls. Variance light, variance light, it's a good way to put it. And um you know, we have a we have a steeply sloped property here. Um as Mr. stored explained that, you know, he designed it to minimize disturbance. Didn't go into
as much 25% grade as he as he did. That's why this development has never gone way up on the hill. It's always been down pretty close to Mount Kimell, whether it was town houses or single family now. So, Mr. Warner, it's both a
hardship and impractical to build on this site with no steep slope disturbance. And I take it all the conditions you would agree would be reasonably related to uh mitigating deviations uh particularly since among
other things your client stipulated to all of them. Correct. Client has been stipulating. I don't know if you've noticed me going back and whispering in his ear hearing. Uh but we we we have to put together a list, Mr. Warner. Make sure it's all buttoned up. But uh everything we heard tonight we agree
with. I have nothing further, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Okay. Uh any questions from the public of this witness? Okay, seeing none, we'll close that. Um I forget is it time for public comment or do we need it? To the extent
uh certainly the public should be afforded another opportunity to comment beyond that which we already have in my opinion. Okay. So now it is time for public comment if you'd like to comment on on the on the application before we move
forward again. I know you've already state your name and address and hi. Yes. Amanda Woolberg 249 Mount Kemell. Uh she has been sworn in. So you don't as you know you remain under roadie. Okay. Um, so I'm just going to ask I I
understand that there's weird kind of vibes with the like um with I guess agreements that have been made previously. So, I don't know how much of this my words are actually going to mean anything, but I'm asking for anybody to
think about where I am located in connection to the road. And if there is any way that you I mean, I know it's possible because I've seen plans that were done where the road was further away from my house, I'm asking
um for some help with that. um some some way that I can be protected. My family, you know, we're looking I bought the house in 2008 with the expectation that
one house could be built on that lot. And this has been 7 years of just trying to understand why that changed. I understand things have happened and I understand there was litigation and all of that, but if things can be moved a
hundred feet just away from my house, I I think that that would just provide me and my family just a little bit of I mean, I'm not asking for everything to stop. I'm asking for a little bit of space. And if there if everything was
just shifted just ever so slightly, I understand it would make more things difficult, but this is where me and my family have lived and we plan to live for the entirety of our lives. We're not looking to move. And um that's something
that would really um help if things could be moved. Um and more trees planted in between that wall and my pool and things like that. Um, I'm begging for help with that and also anything
that you know things can be done to help protect my family from any kind of destruction that comes to our property. Um, that's all I just I mean I loved the fact that there was wildlife. I mean we
have a wildlife cam. We catch fox. We c like all of that is now going to be a wall with the guardrail. And it's just it just breaks my heart like that. I have two young kids and I'm just asking for a little bit of help. If we can move
things a little bit, that would be really helpful. I'm not asking for everything to stop, just a little bit. So I'm asking for your consideration. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Yes. Alan McAlpin, Five Armstrong Road.
I do not um Please raise your right hand. I didn't swear again yet, did I? Uh do you swear to God or affirm testimony about to give us the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you. Please proceed. Um we've been at this for five
years. And it's important to understand what that does. uh the people who are uh my neighbors and I regard my neighbors and Miss Wilberg uh highly. Uh they're just outstanding
individuals. Um she had every reasonable expectation when she moved here that the adjacent property would be OSGU and it would remain that way. turned out not to be the case even
though there were two judgments by the board of adjustments. One judgment here in the uh planning board that the uh change in
uh zoning uh was not consistent with the master plan. And after all that, it comes back to the fact that she's got to look at
um things that she didn't imagine she'd have to deal with or look at. Uh I think that um she wouldn't say, but I think I can know her well enough to say it that she and her family deserve some privacy.
They have a pool in the back. um what we can do in the way of putting maybe staggered rows of Norway spruce um more space between uh the existing um
property line and the road things like that would improve the situation with her. And I think u certainly uh talented um professionals could find a way to
make that happen in the context of what's already been decided. If you got any questions, I'll ask some any other comments from the public. Okay, we'll close the public comment section.
Um, do you want to sum things up? Yes, if I may, Mr. Chairman, the board. This has been, as you've heard everybody say tonight, right? an application that has metamorphosized over the last seven
really in fairness to Michael probably more like nine years from when they first started. A lot of things have changed. Uh there's been a lot of revisions, a lot of working with the municipality and entering into a settlement agreement which really was
something that took a lot of parties involvement. We worked with the professionals of your municipality. It was done in accordance with litigation and a settlement and even made a part of the settlement record which board council is aware which really outlined
the lots and where the right of way is proposed. There were lots of discussions about the town being very certain that they wanted the right of way to be dedicated and not have it be a private road with an HOA because of concerns that have happened and other projects
around the municipality where those private ride ofways have not been maintained and issues have happened. So all of these fundamentals, all of these different things, polling and maneuvering have all come together to
the plan that you see tonight, which really is from a major subdivision perspective. You have four buildable lots that meet all the zoning criteria. In fact, they're larger than what the
RA15 zone requires. We do have variances for the retaining walls which you heard the testimony of our planner and our engineer are direct result of the topography the steep slopes and the goals of what some of these retaining
walls are looking to do provide level areas and so forth throughout it. It is unfortunate that the neighbor feels that there was not enough consideration taken as far as the placement of the ride ofway. Um, all I
can say to the board being only involved in the project for the last two plus years is that every meeting that I've been to, there have been lots of discussions about all of the factors, not just the property line of lot three,
but the steep slope, how to minimize steep slope, how to show the meandering, the right of way partway width of 22 feet, how large it would be 40 feet. we 40 feet in with not having sidewalks,
things of that nature is what I can tell you and because we do empathize for the neighbor and we want to be good neighbors, we could certainly agree to a post development condition of approval that once the wall and the landscape has
been installed, having an on-site meeting with the neighbor and if there is too much of a gap in that corner that she mentioned here where the road is at its closest and the concerns of how many of these trees that are shown on the
landscaping plan would be viable. That if the neighbor consented, it would require her consent. We would be willing to put a total of five trees, two here, two here, one here on her property to help further screen it from her side.
So, she's now seeing those trees. That would be something that if she were to consent to, certainly the applicant would be willing to agree to again once the wall is actually constructed and the landscaping's installed. So the neighbor
can see once they see the final implemented landscaping because as you heard testify tonight, the landscaping plan that is in the package will have some modifications to that tree plan because we're going to comply with the environmental commission's letter.
There's going to be staggered heights. There's going to be some trees that are 12 feet tall. There's going to be different species. And I can assure you that hearing the neighbors concerns, this is going to be an area that's really going to be looked at not only by
the applicant, but I'm sure by the burough's engineer as well. We feel that this is a very, very much improved application. We've really listened to all of the town's concerns and we've really tried
to work out this agreement to provide that much needed open space, adding, you know, additional parking to get that off of Mount Kimell for the trail head. Looking at the sensitivity of the neighbor over here with their driveway
with the historic firehouse wall. There are so many moving parts but we feel and I know this board doesn't have time to hear all of them and I know it's always difficult when you hear somebody say trust us we have worked with your professionals but in this case we have
this application like you've heard has been in the works just for this version that this board has seen for well over two years. This is not something that was quickly thrown together and got passed at a TCC and we're coming up to
you right now. There's been a lot of consideration and we really feel this is true to the settlement agreement that we made with the municipality, true to the intent and true to all of the things that we're looking at. And even though
it's not relevant, my client intends to live here. So he wants the property to be something that he's going to be driving into every day, part of the community.
This is important to him as well. So again, we appreciate your time and consideration and we hope that the board will grant approval on this application. Thank you. Question. Yes, thank you um for this.
That's I I'm thrilled to hear that, you know, you're going to be working with AC, you know, accommodating and partnering with the neighbor. I do feel for Amanda, I'm not sure how to pronounce your last name. Absolutely. Uh I think your your concerns are justified and I think the fact that that the
develop u the applicant is willing to work with you uh once this is once this is complete. I think that you can come to um some kind of an agreement that'll that'll work for you and the applicant. And I think that that the applicant
doesn't have to do that. And the fact that that the applicant is stipulating to that I think is is is pretty pretty genu you know generous very generous um with regard to your pool and again I I I feel I I mean I I
get where you're coming from with this and and um you know what would happen if the construction you know somehow um is detrimental to to your to your pool or to your patio. I would suggest uh please
document document document everything what it looks like now um with the pool with the patio if there's anything that's going to happen you have recourse and I would advise you to absolutely take um all all necessary actions you
can if if in fact something does happen with your property that negatively impacts that to the applicant I would say um white pines blow They are the weak. They are weak trees. Um they come down in the wind and the
snow. I would I would ask you not to plant white pl pine trees, but consider other evergreens. Um that would be would look better and not have as fragile as a white pine. I would also ask the
applicant and again you're in no you I'm in no you know position to demand this but to consider going all electric on your property. um just because it just it's greener than than uh gas.
Um with regard to um what you had said that the applicant uh plans on occupying one of the homes, so only three homes are going to be actually for sale. Is that what I'm hearing? Okay. So, I know that there was
a question about children playing and and whatnot. And I think for the three uh future homeowners, I would say that they should know what they're getting into. And if they have small children, then perhaps maybe one of those homes isn't for them. And that's going to be a
future decision that's made. That's something that we here on this board can't really take into into account. It's going to be the homeowner. So, uh I'm going to vote uh yes on this. And I think that that the applicant has done a great job working with the TCC with the
township committee um in the settlement and I think this plan is a is a good workable plan. Mr. Chairman, yes. I just I just want to clarify Mr. Rabbits suggested that the homes be all electric. That's a
consideration, not a stipulation. Right. Yes. A consideration. Yeah. Thank you. I'm happy to tee it up if you'd like me to do so. As I understand it, it's a in the event it's in the affirmative, it would be a motion to grant preliminary
and final major subdivision approval on this split zoned lot. uh creating six lots, four single family dwelling lots and two passive open space lots to be conveyed to the township. Uh the uh if
it is passed, the conditions stipulated to as I have them are compliance with all reports, including but not limited to the TCC reports of January 2024 and March 2024, the fire report of February 2024, the site inspection report of
February 2024, the environmental commission reports of both January 2024 and March 2025, and uh all outside approvals including uh the utility authorities uh report and their conditions set forth therein on March 14,
2025. Also, the applicant would be stipulating to dedicating the roadway to the township as a public roadway uh conveying to the two open space lots to the township. Uh the
uh and I already said dedicate the road to the township. The um additional conditions that I have from this evening are as follows. Uh HOA would be established subject to review and approval of township attorney and
board and or board attorney um and our township engineer uh with respect to maintenance uh of the storm water detention basin. I believe it's on lot 2.06 06. Uh, as well as maintenance of
the roadway and the roadways, right? Yeah. Maintenance of the roadway walls, excuse me. Uh, the um, storm water on and M operations and maintenance manual will be recorded with
the county clerk's office. Uh, post construction. Uh, I have the HOA uh residential downward uh uh residential shields and downward and dark sky compliant lighting uh lights uh similar
to those prov uh coordinate with JCPNL uh to ensure that the uh lights can be maintained and replaced. Can we put in that the whatever lights the JCPL meet with the uh the lighting spill
maps that you know don't exceed the light spillover that they have to comply with the with the lighting as proposed on the site plan. Yes. um four, not three parking spaces uh in the uh open
space, the one of the two open space lots. Of course, the 2-year maintenance bond and related guarantees uh uh for the uh trees uh along the right of way and in the open space lot uh as well as
uh on the single family lots. Um, and Red Rock or substantially similar wall. Ready rock. Ready rock. I said red rock. I'm going to go to Denver, Colorado for a concert. Ready rock.
Ready. Whatever it is. Uh, the or substantially similar subject to review and approval of our township engineer. Um, and bear with me. a post-development on-site meeting with a neighbor on lot
three. Uh the uh uh to potentially supplement the landscaping uh including up to five trees uh with her permission to be planted on her lot for further screening. Uh subject uh
again with her consent and subject to the review and approval of property owners consent. uh subject to the review and approval of our township engineer and I I think that's two conditions. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that
we approve the preliminary subdivision. George has a question. Sorry, George. I wanted to know early in the meeting there was a series of questions by Mr. Benois about design standards and historic districts and and what happened
with that. I mean I think um the well other than the HPC items in the environmental commission's report which were stipulated to is my understanding those are handled administratively at the lot development lot grading building permit
building phases get the HBC has an opportunity to make comments and then they have no enforcement power and no one to turn to if if the um architect disagrees. Is that
correct? Yeah. Did we did we get the the radar scanners? Yeah, that's in the in the environmental commission report when I was referring to the HPC item in that report in particular. That was one of them. Okay. Okay. So if a me vendor
house is trying is going to be built on the lot is that what to how it's handled in the ordinary course in the administrative process which I'm not specifically here doing so you satisfy perhaps the the ordinance needs
to have some sort of enforcement power because right now it doesn't another story for a different board or there should be some further stipulation here specifically I don't know if we can stipulate it here. I I would prefer not
to at this point. I think it's Let me move forward with that motion. Before you move forward, Mr. Motion. Um, so, Mr. Chair, I I don't know if it's possible to delay uh taking a vote on this application. And if we can't, that's fine. But it seems to me
that the applicants um offer to to meet and confer with Miss Wilberg about the concern she raised as well as the other neighbors. It seems to me that if that's something that could be discussed before a vote, it seems to me that that that might be the proper course of action as
opposed to taking a vote now. If if we can't, I'm going to vote no because I think the the concerns we heard were valid and I think they should be addressed um in a more appropriate and formal way prevote. But again, I
understand if we can't delay it at this point in time and then if that's the case, my vote is no. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we grant preliminary and final subdivision approval based on the um items that our board attorney will put
into the resolution. I second. Any other comments? I just like to make a comment that this is very difficult for me. Uh I was on the board of adjustment when this came to the board of adjustment. U I'm not sure Mr. Benwis was on the on the committee at that time, but um the 11
town homes came to the board of adjustment and I remember thinking, I'm not sure how I like this. Um so I I later moved from the board of adjustment to this board and I thought, well, those board of adjustment folks will have a
difficult matter to to handle. Um and I'm glad I don't have to handle it myself anymore. But here it is back again for me to uh make a decision on with what I think is a much better plan than what was uh presented originally to
the board of adjustment, but it still has some things about it that I find uncomfortable. Um I don't know if this board were to turn it down what the consequences would be and I worry about that. Um so I'm not certain what to do
and I just wanted to say that Well, we have a motion and a second. Yeah. Call the role, please. Mr. Ala, yes. Mr. Barrett, no.
Mr. Flowers. Yes. Mr. Rabbits. Yes. Murphy. Yes. Mr. Benois. Yes. Mr. I will vote yes.
Mr. Wlia, yes. Mr. B. Yes. 8 to1. 8 to one. Yeah, that's what she said. Oh, yeah. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay.
Moving on. Uh we have the legislative committee report. Nope. That matters. And what do we have is the uh the request for extensions. Right. Right.
Oh, that's right. Right. I just it was weird that it was here instead of under resolution. Yes. So, we have the resolution for the extension of time, which I thought we dealt with last we passed we passed the extension. Now, we have to pass the resolution. Yeah,
that's what we did. Right. Okay. So, I could make a motion that we accept the resolution as drafted. I second. Any comments? Did you take the role? Yes. Thank you. Okay. Um,
yes. Mr. Rabbit. Yes. Yes. Mr. Yes. I think I I think I should not vote because I wasn't uh You weren't you weren't here March 17th. Right. Right.
March 3rd. Thank you, Mr. Rivia. Yes. Mr. Yes. Okay. Uh moving on. We do have the time for final um period for opportunity for public comments generally confined to
the things that were not on the agenda or comments in general. Anyone would like to make a public comment. Seeing none, I guess we'll close the public comment section. I make a motion we adjourn. I second.
All in favor? The tag team on the end. Coming.