All right. Uh, calling this meeting of the township ocean planning board to order. Nicole, let you sit and then have a roll call, please. >> Okay. Uh, Councilwoman Kaplan >> here, >> Mr. Beal >> here, >> Mr. Burkowitz, Mr. Goslin
>> here, >> Mr. Manell >> here, >> Miss Valente >> here, >> Mr. Bodnovich, >> Mr. May >> here, >> vice chairman >> here, >> and chairman >> here. Salute the flag. >> 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. >> All right. The notice requirements of the open public meeting law for this meeting have been satisfied. a copy of the notice having been sent to the
Asbury Park Press and the coaster and filed in the office of the township clerk. There is an emergency exit through the courtroom doors over there and two exits to the rear of the room. There is no smoking and that includes ecigarettes and vapes. Board policy is that no new cases will be started after
10 p.m. and no new testimony taken after 10:30 p.m. In addition, the applicant will be limited to 45 minutes of testimony. All meetings will be video and audio taped and shown on the Township of Oceanceans's community cable channel. Channel 77 on Verizon FiOS and
channel 77 on Cable Vision. Please turn off all of your cell phones and if you need to make a call, please step out of the meeting room. All right. To start tonight, we have a presentation from CME Associates. Come on up to the table.
>> Thank you. Okay, buddy. >> Yes. Yes, please. >> Anything everyone? Chris Doy, professional planner with CME Associates. I'm here because uh I was supposed to be here in January and supposed to be here in February, but your meetings little bit of snow
happened and you guys decided you didn't want to have a meeting because you didn't want to all plow through the snow to get here and you want to stay home nice and cozy, I guess. And I did. So, I did the same thing. But, uh I'm here to present to you and discuss a redevelopment plan for the areas known
as block 1.22, lots 33 and 34. Uh, I think most of you were here last year. Maybe it was November of or December of last year. It might have been actually. I was here before you to discuss the redevelopment study that designated these properties an area needed redevelopment. So, now we're moving on
to the next step of the redevelopment process. As I mentioned uh four or five months ago, redevelopment is essentially a 10-step process. Uh, the redevelopment designation was step number two. This is essentially step number four. So the governing body has accepted the report that I had done many months ago and then
the recommendation from you all that that area met the criteria to be designated an area in need of redevelopment under the New Jersey statutes. The next step in the process after the designation is that a redevelopment plan be prepared for the area which is essentially a a standalone zoning ordinance just for this
particular piece of property. And then what's required under New Jersey municipal land use law as well as the local redevelopment and housing law is that any changes to your land use codes have to come before this board. So it it is technically an ordinance that will be eventually adopted if they choose by by your town council. But it
has to be reviewed by this board before they can act on it because you have to make a determination as to whether you find it consistent or inconsistent with your m municipal master plan which you as the planning board have to hold jurisdiction over adop preparing and adopting a master plan. So the governing body cannot act on this document to make it new law until they have further
recommendation from you. So that being move into what this plan is a little bit overview of the property. Again, as I said, it's block 1.22, lots 33 and 34. And in case you don't have your tax maps committed to memory, that is 1211 and
1213 West Park Avenue. That's two properties that currently are developed with uh essentially twin uh senior housing developments that were um I'm forgetting the exact term. They're not quite assisted living facilities, not quite independent living facilities. Both of which have been struggling and
one of them completely vacant other than the kitchen. The other has four of 15 rooms occupied. So of the total 30 rooms in those two facilities, only four are occupied under as a senior residence right now. So that facility I've been struggling, that's what ultimately led to that redevelopment designation. So
after that designation, what the township has put forward in an ordinance which our office prepared working with with the town council and the redevelopment council at McMan Scotland Bowman is a plan for the area to uh essentially take down the two senior living homes and new construction of up
to 30 town houses in the area. So oh sorry another important point here. This is technically the redevelopment plan would serve as an overlay zoning district. So the existing underlying zoning would still be in place with the the current property owners are not losing any of their current property rights. This is just a
new set of property right development rights that if they choose to move forward as a redeveloper can negotiate with the town on specific terms um and proceed as a uh designated redeveloper would be able to build town houses. So this includes similar to a zoning ordinance uh list of permitted uses
which under the redevelopment would be only town houses or recreation uses, accessory uses which is standard things for residences such as parking, signage, fences, walls, patios, those sorts of things. And general bulk standards of front yard setback, sideyard setback, maximum impervious coverage, all the
same sorts of things you see in a zoning wardens is captured in this plan. And anything not expressly captured in this plan, your existing code would would govern any land use there. Uh the off streetet parking requirements are are just the RSIs parking requirements that would apply anyway.
And then there's some additional architectural and circulation and landscaping standards here that u just ensure we get a higher quality development rather than just somebody building uh for lack of a better term throwing off some crappy boxes and saying that they're meeting all the standards.
Another important thing to note here, um, we're not here, we're not approving any actual development applications and I I'm not here before you as a developer. Um, ultimately the owners of the property, I believe it is their intent to develop very similar to this plan. They would bring a site plan
before this board. So there's no you're you're not actually approving a development yet. So, I you know, we're not here to talk about traffic or it's the specific safety of ingress or egress onto Park Avenue there or the exact bedroom configuration or, you know, the look of any particular town homes. I I
can't tell you exactly how they're going to look, how many gables they're going to have, what color the shutters are going to be or anything like that. That would all come during a site plan review and a full set of site plan drawings, architectural drawings, environmental impact statement, all those things would be provided to this board at that time. That being said, as I mentioned earlier
that the primary role of the planning board in in redevelopment at this stage is to review the plan for consistency with your master plan. And and the page 12 of the redevelopment plan, there is a section discussing the go current goals and objectives of your master plan and
your master plan land use element and why I think this is consistent of and some of the goals that this would be uh not not enforcing but u enriching I guess you could say. Some of those is to encourage the appropriate
promote a desirable visual environment through creative development techniques. Um provide sufficient space in appropriate locations for a variety of residential uses. Um as well as your master plan recognizes that there has been quite a loss over the past decade of certain
population demographic, namely those in the sort of the 25 to 44 year old age range. So people my age and a little bit younger than me. you've lost quite a bit of those over the last decade. And one of the goals here building the town houses would be to attract some younger people to the area.
Um, another objective of your master plan is to ensure there's a balanced supply of varied housing types available to current and prospective future populations within the township. I think that would be this plan would be directly helping to achieve that goal. Your land use plan identifies a few
areas in town where town houses would otherwise be permitted and most of those are already fully built out. Um, in addition, your housing plan doesn't necessarily identify this as targeted to affordable housing, but this would also still be consistent with I believe your
housing plan. And then the plan as required the section going through how it impacts neighboring municipalities as well as the state plan. I don't know that I need to go over that with you. This is sort of in the middle of the town, not too close to other municipalities that will have minimal impact on your neighbors.
And this is my opinion also consistent with the state and the state development and redevelopment plan which was just adopted which calls for more intensive developments in the planning area one and planning area two uh mapped areas of the state which the majority of Ocean Township is planning area two the suburban planning area. So, this isn't
in an area where the state would uh encourage redevelopment and the state has already been sent a copy of the redevelopment designation and my understanding is they had no DCA had no objection to the redevelopment designation on this property. Uh that being said, that's really my entire presentation to you. Um the what the law
requires is a uh motion from this body either finding the this plan to be consistent or inconsistent with your master plan as well as it does provide that you are allowed to give the governing body any uh feedback that you wish to provide whether that you know aside from the consistency
review I'm happy to answer any questions uh if you have any. >> Does the board have any questions? I have a question, a couple questions. Um, so currently it is zoned for residential and we are talking about
putting denser residential in the same spot. My concern is since it is exclusively residential uses, where are these folks going to go for anything? We talk about
our open space and recreation, commerce, religious. what's near this that they're going to be able to get to? >> Off the top of my head, I don't know that there is any parks within walking distance of this site. Uh certainly at a
maximum of 30 town houses, I don't think that's a sufficient density where they would be providing substantial on-site recreation. Now, there very well could be uh say like a walking trail or something provided here, but I don't think they're going to be providing a tot necessarily. I typically don't see
those until you start hitting anywhere, you know, 100 or more units in a single residential development. You know, to be completely honest, I I don't have an answer of exactly where they would go for uh parks and recreation or, you know, say the nearest coffee shop off the top of my head. >> And I think that's that's my only
concern with this is that every single activity is going to generate car trips. Every one of them that there are no parks for them to walk to. There's the West Park. I'm sure that anyone who sat in that uh pickup line in the morning or drop off line going to the intermediate
school knows how crazy that street can get. It's it's dangerous to walk on. They don't allow students to walk down West Park to get to the school that is within walking distance of this facility because it's not safe. So, how can what do you suggest that could be done to
make this redevelopment meet more of the community's needs to kind of mitigate what 30 additional homes worth of car trips down one of the major corridors in town would entail? >> Well, it's quite a question to be honest with you. Um, that's our job up here
to be completely honest. I think you're talking about much larger issues and can be addressed through one single development. But what this does allow through redevelopment as opposed to standard development of somebody just bringing a you know subdivision or site plan to the planning board is the town does have the ability to negotiate with
a developer to provide for off-site improvements to the extent that there is any particular need that's identified that can be asked of the redeveloper that they either you know provide something or provide or pay their you know a prrated share of their impact on
any off-site um recreation or community facilities. So that that is something that could potentially be addressed through a redevelopment agreement, not necessarily through the redevelopment plan itself. >> When you were developing this plan, did you consider mixed use at all for minor retail to be incorporated?
>> That wasn't necessarily the scope of what I was uh told of what the town was looking for here. Uh that potentially, if that's a comment you want to make to the governing body, that could be something that ultimately gets included in the plan if they wish to do that. My general opinion, I don't know that there would be much of a market for
non-residential development on this exact property. There might be some potential for something very small. >> I mean, it goes back to what I'm saying is that there's nothing to walk to in that area. And there was a major development directly across the street 12 years ago or so. So, there has been a
lot of development in housing that has gone into a portion of town that is not served by other resources. So, as we are looking to put more residential there, and I think everyone on this day knows that I'm a big proponent of appropriately placed density, that we
should be looking at other resources to go along with it instead of putting them out where everything requires a car trip and not even a bike trip, just a car trip because bikes on West Park also probably not the safest idea. Anyone else have comments, questions, thoughts
they want to share before so I I want to agree with this and you know there's no sidewalks on either side. You know these folks couldn't walk to the middle school currently. You know there's no safe passage on either side of West Park. There is a there is a playground but
again you can't walk to it at the municipal down the street. >> Oh yeah that's right. >> But you can't can't walk to there's no safe you know way to traverse that. And I don't know, I don't know if you looked at that, you know, football field there, there's the playground, and there's municipal gyms there. And then on the
other side is our, you know, uh, intermediate school. We have soccer fields, and we have summer camps there. But there's no safe passage there at all. There's really not. Everything requires a car trip. And if you've been in the morning, it's very dangerous and it's just going to increase the traffic
there for both. So get a lot of good points. said, "No, we're not voting on all that and talking about that." But >> well, we can make a recommendation too that one body. >> We really question on the 30 proposed. I didn't see, you know, approximate size like what's the square foot? I saw a
threebedroom, but I didn't, you know, did I miss >> We don't We're not specifying a size in here. We're not studying a minimum or a maximum. Um my assumption is they'd be somewhere in the range of 2,000 square feet. You know, a typical house being built these days. that there's no
there's no official minimum or maximum outside of there's a minimum or maximum in your current code. >> No, no, that's for the code. I just you know trying to propose 30. I was trying to you know >> it's pretty dense. I I didn't know. >> I guess it would be roughly 2,000 square feet give or take a few hundred feet either way.
>> Does the ordinance have a floor area ratio maximum? >> That might be one way to control the size >> because if you have 30 units on three acres. >> Thank you. If you have a ratio then you >> no there's there's no F
>> standard within this code within this ordinance >> but they would be somewhat limited in size and building height would also maximum here maximum building height of 35 ft which
would be roughly it's a standard residential height of we typically see in single family districts. >> Anybody else? >> No, Mark, just correct me if I'm wrong. This is the master plan consistency, so we can just uh vote on this straight out or
>> let me ask just for uh has the council actually introduced this plan? >> Yes, >> the council the council introduced it. Okay. So, that's that's the only reason it's coming here then is for the consistency. Uh yeah, that's that's what it is, consistency. and you put in your recommendations.
>> Okay. All right. So, uh can I have a motion to find or not find this plan consistent with the master plan and if consistent with the master plan to pass along the board's recommendations to explore uh
additional opportunities for uh resources to be placed there? Someone wants to make a motion. Four against four. >> Four. Do I >> have a second? I'll second. >> Seconded by Mr. Beal. Roll call, please.
>> Councilwoman Kaplan, >> yes. >> Mr. Beal, >> yes. >> Mr. Goslin, >> yes. >> Mr. Minnell, >> yes. >> Miss Valente, >> yes. >> Mr. Maney, >> yes. >> Vice Chairman Palutes, >> yes. >> And Chairman Dilia, >> yes. >> All right. Thank you all. >> Thank you.
>> All right. Our next order of business is 465 West Park LLC. 465 and 461 West Park Avenue block 5.02. Uh it's 27.01 and 27.02 in the R4 zone. And I believe we
have Mr. Rodsky. What else? >> Anthony Star. >> Oh, okay. Well, now I'm way off. my colleague. Uh, good evening chairman and board members. My name is Anthony Staro with the law firm of Ancel Guran
Aaron here tonight on behalf of the applicant. So, short story short, this board previously granted a minor subdivision approval and lot with variances for this property back in 2024 to create two vacant building lots, both
of which were more than double the required lot area. The subdivision has since been perfected. I'm here tonight essentially just for the purpose of tidying things up and straightening out the representation made at that previous hearing. So, originally the subdivision plan approved by the board showed a 15-
ft right-of-way easement being granted to the county for each lot subject to county approval. Well, the county planning board uh required that we instead grant rightofway dedications rather than the easements. The applicant's engineer at the time tried requesting a waiver from the county to
allow for these instead, but that request wasn't granted. Notably, the subdivision deed was released and recorded before the dedication dees were recorded. So essentially, the dedications are identical in size and location to the easements shown on the 2024 plans before this board. But
obviously, that means that the resultant lot areas are now about 1,200 square feet less than what was represented and technically approved. However, both lots are still over 22,000 square feet each, whereas a minimum of 10,000 square feet is required. In other words, more than
twice the required size. The previously granted lot with variances are unaffected and no new variances arose from the dedications. Nothing new is really being proposed. It's all done. But since the resultant lots are slightly smaller than what was
previously contemplated, this application is simply to straighten out the record. To quote directly from Mr. Higgins report, the purpose of this application is simply to ratify the changes created by the required dedication. So I have one more point to make after
Mark uh if you want to do evidence and then I'm happy to answer any questions. >> All right. So we'll mark in exhibit A1 is the variance plan itself. Um, A2 can be the uh Mama County Planning Board final approval. A3 will be the reported
subdivision deed. A4 will be the survey of the property uh for proposed lot 27.01. A5 will be proposed the survey of proposed lot 27.02. A6 will be the minor subdivision plan.
And then as far as the board exhibits, we have exhibit B1 is the board planner letter. B2 will be the board engineers report and B3 will be the honey board resolution dated November 25th, 2024.
Okay. So, just one additional point, the plans that were submitted as A6, the minor subdivision plan were inadvertently submitted showing proposed houses on the lots for demonstrative purposes. Except the plans aren't very clear that they are for demonstrative
purposes. We're not proposing any new constructions. It's two vacant lots that have already been subdivided and the dedication's already occurred. We're not proposing any new reconstruction at this time. So, I just want to make clear that there's no proposed houses, no proposed driveways, anything like that.
>> All right. Um, professionals, you guys got anything? >> The only thing I have is that all applicable conditions for the prior approval should be included if you choose to approve it. And that uh the uh
tree removal ordinance in place at the time of application for building permits should be the one that is applies to any proposed building permits and that any street trees that are required by the ordinance should be put in prior to
issuance of a certificate of occupancy. >> And we're okay with all of that. Okay. >> Does the board have any questions? Seeing none, open it up for members of the public. Is there anyone from the public who has questions on this? >> Just kidding.
>> You're welcome to ask questions. MCO, >> listen. Be nice to him because if you're nice to him, I'm going to keep sending him and not co. >> Um, all right. So, seeing no members. >> Oh, no. No. You have to come up and introduce yourself. Do we have a microphone for him?
forgot to get. >> One second, sir. >> And just introduce your name and your address for the record and then you can ask your your question. >> I'm just going to swear you sir. I'm going to swear you wait. You swearing testimony you're about to give will be the truth. The whole truth about the
truth of God. >> All right. Just state your name for the record. >> Sorry. >> Hello. >> Yeah. Your name? Giovani Zofra, 2005 Hullbrook Street, Milurst. >> I'm sorry, you said it way too fast. Jiovani >> Zalopra. >> You spell the last name. >> Z O L O F R A.
>> And your address? >> 2005 Hullbrook Street. >> Brook Street. All right. Go ahead. >> How many houses do they actually plan on building in those lots? >> Well, right now zero houses are proposed, but originally the subdivision approval went from one extremely
oversized lot to two oversized lots. So, if the owner decides to come back in the future to build houses, it would be a maximum of two, one on each lot. >> That's not what I'm reading. That's not what I'm reading on this case. >> A wrong case. I'm sorry. My bad. >> No worries.
>> Anyone else in the public have a question? >> All right. Um, have a motion to close public comment. A second. >> Seconded by Mr. Mell. Uh, we can do all in favor, right? >> No. >> Now, roll call, please. >> Oh, who was the first? I'm sorry, I
missed it. >> It was uh Vice Chair Lewis. >> Okay. And the second was Mr. Manell. >> Mel. >> Okay. Uh, Council Mccapan. >> Yes. >> Mr. Deal. >> Yes. >> Mr. Goslin. >> Yes. >> Mr. Manell. >> Yes. >> Mr. M. Yes. >> Vice Chairman Kudas. Yes.
>> And Chairman Dilia. >> Yes. Okay. >> Thank you. >> Well, that was just a close public comment. That wasn't >> that was public. >> That could have been messing with me tonight. >> We haven't been here in two months. We
forget what we're doing. All right. Now, can I have a mo Does someone want to make a motion to approve this uh amendment? >> I'll move. >> Moved by Mr. Mimi. Do I have a second? Second by Mr. Minnell. Again, now can we have another roll call? >> Absolutely. >> Clarify. It's just for the subdivision.
>> Subdivision with all of the uh points that That's it. >> It's technically an amendment to the previous resolution >> just so it's clear. >> Yeah. >> And all your >> moving of a lot line is what it down to. >> Right. Thank you. >> So, Council Maplin,
>> yes. >> Mr. Beal, >> yes. >> Mr. Goslin, yes. >> Mr. Mau, >> yes. >> Mr. Mimi, >> yes. >> Vice Chairman Kudis, >> yes. >> And Chairman Dilia, >> yes. >> Now, there we go. >> I apologize. I I think you guys are voting on the >> We both want the same thing.
All right, moving right along with our agenda this evening. We next have up 1309 Optike LLC. 1309 Optic Avenue, lot 110, lot 7 in the R six zone and uh Mr. Ferraro. >> Yes. Oh, good. I got a right attorney
tonight. Okay, here we go. >> Good evening, members. John Ferraro from law firm Bruno and Ferraro here on behalf of the applicant 1309 Updike LLC. Um to my right is Brian Kosano. He's a member of the LLC and he'll be testifying on behalf of the entity. Uh
today we're here before the board regarding the property at 1309 Up Lake Avenue. Um it's an oversized lot. We're requesting to subdivide the lot into two separate lots. Um lot 7.01 would be the existing lot with the existing single family home on the property. Um my
client's intention is to renovate that and to sell the property. I'm about 702. The plan would be to build a conforming single family home on the property and then we'd like to then sell that property as well. >> All right. So, I'm going to mark in the following exhibits. Exhibit A1 will be the variance plan. Exhibit A2 is the
improvement plan. Those are the only two exhibits I have from the applicant. I then have the following exhibits on behalf of the board. Exhibit B1 will be the board planners report. Exhibit B2 will be the board engineers report. Uh B3 will be the code enforcement memo. D4
will be the DTW memo. B5 will be the fire marshall memo. B6 will be the traffic safety report. And B7 will be the crimerevention report. Those are all the exhibits I have. And you want me to swear in your witness? >> Mr. the memo. >> We don't we don't mark those in because
because Yeah, that's they can testify that. So >> um >> ready. The swearing testimony you're about to give will be the truth the whole truth about the truth to God. And just state your name again for the record. Frank, last name. C O L A S U O
N O. >> Okay. And your position with the LLC? You're the magic member. >> Manager. Yep. >> Thank you. Go ahead. >> Mr. Pano, you're a member of 1309 Upke LLC. >> Yes.
>> Okay. And the entity owns the property located at 1309 Up Governor. >> Yes. >> Okay. And you're here before the board to ask for a subdivision of the property. Correct. >> Correct. >> Okay. Could you go over the plan for lot um 7.01? >> Sure. Um 7.01 um we'll be renovating the
existing house um and selling it. >> Okay. And then lot 7.02. >> Correct. We'll be um building a uh fully conforming home on the lot and selling it. >> Okay. And just to confirm both are full.
>> Correct. not requesting again. >> Can I just make one comment there? A minor correction and I missed it too until the existing driveway on the lot
with the residence on it. The existing residence is very close to the property line. The ordinance requires it to be 5 ft from the property line. So since you're creating a new lot, there's a technical variance there. even though it's an existing condition that's not
being impacted by the subdivision. Um could be handled one of three ways the board could grant variance. The board could not grant the variance and require you to move it 5 ft from the property line which could be done looking at the plan. It looks like that
could be done without much of a problem. Or the third possibility is what boards have done with regard to sheds and accessory structures is to allow it to remain in place and if it's ever resurfaced or replaced that it be moved
5T from the property line. >> All right. So there's nothing there's no such thing as a technical variance. >> Yes, that's true. >> So So I need to know does the notice include does request variance release
>> which I doubt it does. Sorry about bringing that up at the last minute. I did not see it on the phone. >> The applicant also reserves the right to request approval for all other mention. All right. So, we'll let it we'll let it through. Um, so I need to
So, it's the driveway is within 5 ft >> of the existing southernly property. >> It's a pre-existing barrier. >> Pre-existing. >> Okay. And how how many feet is it?
>> It's looks like it's right on the property line. >> So zero >> zero. Yeah. It's not dimension, but >> Okay. >> It overlaps the plot lines. >> Got it. I see it. I see it. Yep. Yep.
All right. So, just the boards uh it it's not that that variance is not impacted by this application in any way, shape, or form because we're not changing anything on that side. But, but it is good that we're noting. >> Does the board do you have anything else
you want to say before I open the board? Does the board have any questions? >> Just want to be clear 100 by 200. >> It's 100 roughly 100 by 100 by 100.
>> Yeah. And it's a zone that allows 50 by 100. >> But it's important. >> I have a question or a recommendation on lot 7.02. you have three large-sized trees right in the building envelope. So I would make a recommendation that part
of resolution compliance um the tree replacement is done prior to getting a CO. >> So tree replacement prior to CO >> and street trees also. >> So would that be five trees then because
you're reporting to two correct? >> Yes. should be >> 100 ft. So really two >> two and plus the three >> what? >> Well, >> they could be included within the three. That's where that's where the ordinance
is. >> Anything else from the board? >> All right, I'm going to open up for public comment. Does anyone >> Oh, I'm so sorry. >> That's okay. >> Been very quiet over there. >> That's all right. Uh I I just wanted to point out there were a couple uh items
in my report and uh they were referred to basically things that were missing from the subdivision plan. I didn't have a copy of the improvement plan but it has uh recently been been given to people and the improvement plan does address the the comments in my report.
So I don't have any anything with the application. >> Okay. >> All right. Anything else? >> That's it. >> All right. We'll try that again. Open it up for comments from members of the public. Anyone have question, comment, concern?
Seeing none, uh, do I have a motion to close public comment? >> Moved by Mr. M. Do I have a second? >> Seconded. >> All in favor? All in favor? >> I. There we go. Okay. Now, >> do I have a motion to approve the
subdivision? >> Motion moved. Seconded >> Mr. Second. >> Yes. >> All right. Councilwoman Kaplan. >> Yes. >> Mr. Be. >> Yes. >> Mr. Goslin. >> Yes. >> Mr. Manow. >> Yes. >> Miss Valente. >> Yes.
>> Mr. May. >> Yes. >> Vice Chairman Palutes. >> Yes. >> And Chairman Dilia. >> Yes. >> All right. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay. >> All right. Last one on the list for this evening,
Bioin Investment Group LLC, 70276 West Park Avenue, block 33.13, lots 20, 30, and 31 in the T1 zone at 12 Klein Street East only. Lot 33.13, lot 5 in the R4
zone. And we have Miss >> There you go. Listen, two out of three. I'll take you. >> Okay. Good evening, uh, Mr. Chair, members of the board, as you know, Jennifer Krennico here on behalf of the applicant. I'm not going to be over excited and jump right in like Anthony did. I'm going to pause for a moment and
let Mark take some exhibits and then I'll give you a highle summary and we'll jump right into testimony. >> All right. So, exhibit A1 will be the variance application itself. Exhibit A2 will be the phase one environmental assessment. A3 will be M County Planning
Board's request for more information. Exhibit A4 will be the photo location report. Exhibit A5 will be the environmental impact statement. Exhibit A6 will be the storm water management manual. Exhibit A7 will be the uh storm
water management recharge analysis report. Exhibit A8 will be the boundary and topographic survey uh for lot 29. A9 will be the boundary and
topographic survey for lot 30. A10 will be the topographic survey and boundary for 31. A 11 will be the boundary and location and partial topographic survey um prepared by
dynamic survey dated April 30th 2025 last revised September 10th 2025 and A12 will be the major subdivision and site plan prepared by dynamic engineering. And then I have the following board exhibits. Exhibit B1 will be the board
planner report. Exhibit B2 will be the board engineers report. B3 will be the report from code enforcement. B4 will be the report from the DPW. B5 will be crime preventions report. B6 will be the traffic safety report. B7 will be the
fire marshals report. B8 will be the environmental commission report. And B9 No, I'm not doing B9. That's it. >> Thank you. And before I move in some of the exhibits uh to help supplement the plans that were submitted, I just want to take a moment and walk you through
high level what we're proposing here. Uh this is property located on um West Park Avenue. And previously, we all know there was a I don't know how you can describe it. It was some kind of lawn service type location and then it turned
into a florist at one point. Um, it's in the TI zone where the transition zone. Is it TI or T1? I'm sorry. The T1 I know it's I1 or whatever. In the T1 zone, which allows for single family homes and it also allows for various commercial
uses. What we're looking to do is convert it from a commercial use into essentially conforming single family homes. Why do I say essentially? Well, as far as the number of homes contemplated for this lot, we're fully conforming. They want 10,000 square foot
lots. We have 10,000 square feet or more for each of the lots, but because we don't want to have the lots necessarily front on West Park Avenue, and we want to be able to give it a residential street, we're building a culde-sac. When you build a culde-sac, what that does is
it changes the uh dynamic and the angles of how the lots will front on that culde-sac. So, as a result, even though we're exceeding the 10,000, some of the interior lots require lot width variances, uh, which you're going to hear through
the testimony. We have a basin lot, which requires a bunch of variances because your ordinance wasn't designed to regulate basin lots. It was designed to regulate the lots where single family homes are constructed and that's confirmed in Jim's report. Additionally,
we have a house that's existing there today that is very close to West Park Avenue. Much like you heard uh with Anthony in the first one, the county is requiring a dedication. When we dedicate the land, and that dedication could be required whether we're subdividing or not, they have the right to acquire it
at any time. uh essentially puts that house almost right up on the property line. We're not creating that variance by the subdivision. That's a function of the dedication, but we're not changing the location of the house or or where it addresses all that. I do know that there
are neighbors here. I've had the opportunity to speak with some of them. Uh some of the concerns are drainage, which we hope to address for you because as you're going to hear, we're collecting, holding, and then releasing it underground. So all the existing overground flow that's hitting their
culdeac is not going to be there anymore. Some of the concerns are traffic. I also have a traffic engineer here who's going to offer testimony with the traffic we're proposing by virtue of this permitted use as compared to what the traffic would be if the garden
center reopened or another commercial use went there. again and and I remind you when you're building according to the um contemplated zoning which is single family homes at 10,000 square ft each the traffic consideration is really
safe ingress and egress. Having lived in this area my entire life and watched it develop as I've been here I recognize that West Park Avenue is a very busy roadway and there's no question that it's going to stay busy. What we're
proposing and what you're going to hear from the testimony is though that we're consistent with your zoning as contemplated for that busy roadway and what's existing there today isn't really the issue. It's can we get in and out of our property safely. The good news is
also is that since this is a county road and not a municipal road that we're accessing really at the end of the day the jurisdiction is going to be with the county anyway with regard to any traffic improvements and anything else that we need to do. So, I think I hit it all on a high level. Um, if you can hand me
those, I'll move all the different exhibits in and pass them out and we'll get started. So, we left off at A12. So, A13 is an aerial map exhibit. And I know we did 20. Um, if you guys
mind sharing so we can make sure there's enough for the public and it will be on the board also. >> Nobody wants to share. >> We can share. I do not. Very good. >> And for the members of the public, I'm going to put
>> Oh, I gave one over. No, I think >> if you don't mind taking one and then handing them out to maybe your neighbors that might want one. >> A4 is an aerial overlay. Not A4, I'm sorry. A
>> 14. That's an aerial overlay. And again, both are prepared by Dynamic Engineering and have today's date. And what this does essentially is show you the color rendered version
the color rendered version of the plan overlaid on an aerial showing the you don't mind taking them showing it over essentially a parcel map
so you can compare it to the adjacent residential which is in the R4 four, which is what we're building up against. Thank you, sir. You can take one of this around. And then lastly, similar to what I just moved in, A15 is just a closeup color
rendering. And one of the things as I'm passing this out that I forgot to mention and you're going to hear from Jeff when I have them sworn is there is a lot on Klein Street that we sought an easement in order to connect
the drainage like I'd indicated underground onto Klein Street. That lot is part of the subdivision. So should be enough for you. Is it not? >> I'm sorry. Um, >> that's part of the subdivision only
because of the easement. We're not proposing any uh other >> improvements on that. With that, and thank you for your patience. Uh, I'd like to introduce our engineer, have him sworn. He is a licensed engineering planner. So, I'd be
submitting as an expert in both fields. >> That's the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, honey, but yourself. Yes. State your name. >> Jeffrey. >> You better bring that much closer. >> Jeffrey Haberman. Spelled H A B E R M A
N. >> Thanks. And >> you are a licensed planner and a licensed engineer in the state of New Jersey. >> Yes, I am. >> And both of your licenses are in good standing. >> They are. >> Thank you. We don't need anything. >> Okay. Thanks. And Jeff, to the extent you're going to get um Nicole, do you have the portable mic or No. >> Yes.
>> To the extent you're going to get up and point anything out, just make sure you bring the mic with you. >> Sure. Thank you. you're the expert and you designed this. I'm going to turn it over to you to walk through what's existing, what we're proposing, and then we'll go into the uh variances. >> Sure. Thank you and good evening. Um
starting here with exhibit A13, I believe it is. Yes. >> Um which is the arrow map exhibit prepared by my firm. And to orient the board, I'll consider the north arrow to the top of the page for ease of orientation even though it's the top right of the page um in actuality. Uh so what you see here is an aerial
overview of the subject parcel. It's outlined in the yellow color um with the surrounding uses predominantly residential all around the property. Um the the prop the property subject to this application is identified as block 33.13
lots 5, 29, 30, and 31. The park the parcel fronts on West Park Avenue is mentioned is a county roadway, county route 14 to be exact. Um that is to the north of the property and Klein Street is to the south.
Lots 29 through 31 uh which are the main subject of this subdivision application have direct frontage along West Park Avenue. It was mentioned that lot 5 is also included in this application. It's an existing single family lot that is located with frontage on Klein Street to the south.
no improvements proposed with that lot five single family uh dwelling with exception of an underground storm water drainage pipe which will connect to Klein Street and I'll detail that a bit further um as I get into storm water testimony.
Existing lots 29 through 31 comprise of 2.41 acres in size and are located in the T1 transitional office and residential zone. In the existing condition, the site is currently developed with two single family dwellings and a former florist
use if you will or a greenhouse. The applicant's proposing to maintain the existing single family dwelling that's located on lot five as I mentioned and and lot 29 which is the northeasterly um >> so so essentially singing the existing
lot on Klein and the existing house on West Park we're going to leave as is. >> That is correct. >> Okay. I don't know that they can orient the lot numbers based on this. So, just to make it clear. >> Understood. >> Uh the other structures on site will be raised as part of this application if
approved. The subject parcel itself currently drains from the northerly property line down to the south via overland flow. Um where storm water storm water runoff drains over the the residential lots that are directly to the south towards Klein Street where runoff is picked up by the catch basins
that are currently in Klein Street. So there are there is essentially no storm water detention currently um existing on the subject across the parcel. >> So when we were preparing for this and I think we met in technical review once if not twice and we noted that there was some um flooding on that culdeac of
Klein. That's because it's all graded to that our site naturally grades that way or does today and there's nothing that's holding the water and keeping it. So essentially any water that hits the impervious on our property is just going right over land and onto that spot.
>> That's great. That's that's correct. The impervious and even open space areas, it all drains undetained right onto to uh the adjacent properties and client street. Um there there are no water bodies on site, no flood hazard areas or wetlands located on site. Um there was a comment
in uh the board engineers view review memorandum pertaining to potential for wetlands across wet west park avenue to the north. However, pursuant to our review of that mapping the map wetlands are are pretty far away um further away from West Park a to the northwest and
our site drains away from those wetland areas with the intervening infrastructure in West Park Avenue including the street itself and all the utilities. um we don't there essentially will be no negative impact to those wetlands across the street. >> And also though there is no buffers that would affect our property that would
necessitate D approval to >> understanding there are no buffers either that pursue our review of the wetlands mapping that's associated with with the wetlands database. >> That'll conclude my existing conditions test go right into >> Go ahead and I'll switch the exhibit.
>> Wonderful. I think I might uh Mr. Crimco might make most sense to go right. >> Yeah. Jen >> to the overall sight rendering. >> No one here. >> I do miss >> on the record. Yes. >> Yeah.
>> But you don't have >> So this exhibit here was exhibit A14 entitled aerial overlay. What's shown here is essentially the prior aerial overlay that was depicted on the aerial map exhibit with our colorized site plan
overlay on top of that. Um what's shown is in on the subject parcel itself colorized the green is is the open space areas. The darker gray shade is the proposed street. Um the the beige color that's at the the south eastern corner
of the parcel. Bottom right is the above ground infiltration basin that's proposed. And and Jeeoff, just before you go on, >> as part of this application, and we're going to get into it in greater detail when we discuss the remainder of Ben's reports, we're not proposing any
construction on any of the lots right now. What we're proposing to do is just to create buildable lots that one day could be built upon by way of submitting for a building permit and zoning review and all of those things. So, this is not like, you know, we're not coming as a
developer saying, "Here's the houses we want to build. Here's where they're going to go. Here's We're only seeking to create the lots that are existing there today." >> That's correct. It's um similar to the prior application that was here before. It's it's the applicant is solely
proposing a subdivision of the property. Um, we don't know if a single developer will end up buying the entire project and constructing all the improvements or if the applicant will construct the common elements of the project and then sell individual lots to feature homeowners. Um, in in either case,
regardless though, there will be have to be formal plot plans designed for each individual lot and submitted to the Ocean Township zoning and building departments for approval. From a zoning perspective and from an engineering, grading, drainage perspective as well. >> Um, this is more of the mass development
uh proposal that we're getting tonight. >> And obviously, should the board approve this subdivision, the drainage improvements, the roadway, all of the shared infrastructure would have to be installed and bonded and provided for by whomever gets the approval or whoever ultimately develops it.
>> Absolutely. >> Okay. So, and again, the reason why I offer this now, which is when you're looking in the context, a lot of times when we come in with a subdivision, we provide architectural plans. We talk about where the driveway is going to be, where the house is going to be. We're not presenting any of that because
essentially these are all conforming as it relates to the lot area. We don't need any variances for structure. We're not seeking any variances for structures or setbacks or anything like that. So, we're just looking to create the lots, get approval, site plan approval for the grading that you see on the grading
plans and the roadway, the sidewalks, the street trees, the lighting, all the things, you know, that that are attended to it. And then should the board approve this, then as each lot gets developed, they would be required to seek the same approvals that any homeowner who buys a
lot, a vacant lot in Ocean Township would be required. So I just wanted to you talking about site plan. I just want to make that clarification. >> Thank you. So, we are here tonight seeking preliminary and final major subdivision and site plan approval with bulk
variances to create eight new lots on the subject parcel. They're lettered as A through H on the site plan rendering that's before you. Um, and those eight new lots are from the existing three lot track that's fronting off West Park Avenue.
Just from a nomenclature uh alphabetical order perspective, the lot A starts at the existing single family lot that's at the upper right hand side of the page and then it follows in alphabetical order clockwise around the new street that's in the middle of the page. >> Clockwise or counterclockwise?
>> Uh clockwise. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> So H is the Yeah. the top left. That's proposed. Uh Jen did mention we filed an application with the Mon County Planning Board. Um, we actually did anticipate this before we filed the application
that they would request a 15 foot wide dedication of land um for uh to to essentially conform with their master plan. This will result in a front yard setback variance for that existing single family home on lot A that is to
remain. Right now it is in a non-conforming condition um with a 16 foot setback to the front covered porch of that existing structure whereas 30 feet is the minimum required in the T1 zone. With the new dedication the front yard setback is now proposed at 1.1 ft.
So therefore we are seeking seariance relief for that encroachment. >> But again we're not moving the house and we're not expanding the roadway. And I think as you as you go through Jim's report, he indicates it's unlikely that the road is ever expanded to that
extent. But again, that's something that the county would have the right to do regardless. And but and just Jim, one quick question. >> I think I saw in your definition of of setbacks, front setback, but it's actually measured to the future right away based on the master plan. Correct. Correct.
>> So our existing setback really is 1.1. >> Correct. That's >> because the future right ofway is based on the camp. >> It's not the lot it's the setback is from the building to the front lot line. So the front lot line is now what is it
9.1 ft. >> So the existing setback is 9.1 or whatever that figure is. >> No, but and again and I it's it's interesting that >> 9.3. Yeah. >> But go ahead. I'm sorry. But because of the subdivision
then it would be reduced to 1.1. >> Well again when you say because of the subdivision it >> the master plan says that any new development. >> Okay. >> If there's such as a subdivision or so on that that the front setback will be
measured to the right of way as >> laid out in the master plan. >> Okay. >> But right now the setback is 9.3 ft. Right. >> But And the cap county could come in >> tomorrow >> tomorrow. >> And unlike the prior subdivision tonight
because this property has existed for years, they could take that property without coming to this board for a subdivision. >> Meaning the 15 ft. >> Yeah, the 15, >> right? Okay. So, go ahead. I'm sorry, Jeff.
>> So, we went over how there are no housing structures proposed with this application. Um, I'll briefly go over the common improvements that are proposed as part of this application. Um, they include a new public roadway internal to the site. It's called road A on your plans. Now, future name to be
determined and worked with your um with the ocean council officials. That roadway is designed in accordance with RSI standards. A storm water conveyance system and a storm water infiltration basin which is designed on its own lot which is lot E.
That is the southeastern most lot or the bottom right lot on the page. Lighting for the new roadway. Um, LED lighting, downcast, non-glare fixtures, utility extensions. The applicant is proposing to extend all utility,
sanitary sewer, domestic water and fire, um, electric, water, uh, gas and telecommunication services. All within the new road underground, >> but extend from where? From West Park Avenue. They'll extend from West Park Avenue within the available public utilities in that right away.
Landscaping um there'll be new street trees along West Park Avenue whereas they're lacking in the existing condition especially along the floor's frontage. Um landscaping throughout the entire development as well as new buffering screening along the southern property line to screen from the
residences to the south. And I mentioned life five is also included with the application as there's a storm water easement uh for the storm water conveyance system uh that will connect from that proposed above ground detention basin on the applicant's property to the infrastructure that's
located underground in Klein Street. The proposed project as a whole u meets the intent of the bulk requirements of the T1 zoning standards as all the vacant building lots that are proposed meet the minimum 10,000 square foot area requirement as stated previously. Um
therefore the density of the project I can say is consistent with the surrounding um residential neighborhood which is predominantly in the R4 zone and has the same 10,000 square foot minimum standard. There was there is one exception which is lot E uh which is the storm water
basin lot. It falls a little bit short of that 10,000t mark. Um to be exact it's 8,887 square ft. Now, the reason for that is because we didn't need the full 10,000 square ft for storm water management purposes. We could accomplish the
detention needed with that uh with that proposed lot area in its entirety. So, we do have a C variance relief uh that'll be required for that uh lot area size on L. But as mentioned, the bulk requirements of the ordinance are intended for lots
to be developed for residential and office uses and not for storm water management basins. So, um it is sized appropriately and I'll I'll mention that during my stoneware testimony. We are requesting other minor bulk variance relief though these uh vacant
lots do meet the minimum lot area requirements. There are um minimum lot width depth and frontage variances that are being requested for this application. >> And before you go into it, I just want to confirm a couple things. So when you look at your exhibit, the transitional
zone is essentially all the lots that front on West Park Avenue. >> Yes. Correct. >> So any lot that's developed on West Park Avenue, it is not they're not fronting on and developed residential type street. It's more of the county
thoroughare that it is. So the distinction between the R4 which is all the houses behind us which is what we're proposing to develop consistent with the only difference is is that the the transition the T1 requires 100 foot in
width and frontage where the R4 allows for 90. >> That's correct. Yes. So the R4 district, the the blue zoning line essentially the the houses all around here are in the R4 district and the transitional zone though it does stretch. It's it's a
small sliver that runs towards Route 35. They are single family homes and those lots are also consistent with the R4 zoning standards. Um so there are four lots proposed with this application that are short of the minimum width requirement of 100 ft pursuant to the T1 zone. However, they are greater than 90
feet in width would which would be consistent with the R4 zoning standards and the surrounding neighborhood community. >> Right. And from a planning perspective, if you're zoning for both if if they obviously didn't go to the trouble of differentiating between if it's a single family use or an office use, but
typically the wider frontage would be for the office use. It would be more appropriate for the office use because you need to have the ingress and egress uh for a different amount of traffic along the way for a single lot. >> It would for for traffic for the parking necessitated for it the increased
impervious but that's not what is contemplated with this proposal. >> Okay. And all of our lots their driveways will be on this internal residential street similar to the all the R4 like on Klein Street behind us. So again, the the excess width is it
necessary or certainly won't have any impact on the streetscape uh along West Park Avenue. >> Absolutely not. >> Okay. >> So just just I'm sorry to interrupt. Just a quick point of clarification. All of the new lots except for the one on Klein will remain within T1.
>> Yeah. >> Thank you. Go on. >> Yeah. So, uh, back on the roadway and pedestrian circulation and and connectivity, uh, side of testimony here, the the proposed new public roadway, as I mentioned, is designed in accordance with RSIS standards. It
connects perpendicularly perpendicularly to West Park Avenue, full movement driveway um, with the T intersection is proposed. The intersection is designed with ADA compliant curb ramps, uh, crosswalks, and traffic control measures. Um, and
the, uh, the public street will serve each new residential lot. Now, we do show on the site plan diagram the concrete aprons that would possibly go up to each individual residential lot off of the of the new public street. However, that would be subject to change
based on where individual homeowners would ultimately design their their homes in their driveways and garages. Um, we showed it for representation purposes at this time though, so you can understand how potentially that might feed off of the main public roadway that's proposed.
There's also a culde-sac proposed at the south end to allow for proper maneuvers for several vehicles. the mainly most important the the Ocean Township Fire apparatus. Um any delivery vehicles, Amazon vehicles, sprinter vans as well
as the uh dumpster trucks um for for trash pickup >> and school buses. >> And school buses. Yes, there is a design waiver required for that culde-sac design. Um the township ordinance requires a minimum turnaround
radius of 50 ft whereas the radius designed here is 43 feet. Now in terms of the design waiver the standard is whether the the board finds that the the requested waiver is is reasonable and if it would present a hardship to the
applicant uh to comply with. In this instance here the culdeac is designed in accordance with RSI standards actually slightly above RSI standards. um but before I even talk about that it's my understanding that the RSI standards is what governs that the ordinance can't
require something more restrictive than Reese's the whole purpose of Reese's is to give uniformity for these types of things throughout the state so each municipality isn't doing that so I think that if we comply with Reesus essentially
we comply remark on that >> you can the ordinance can be less than RSI you can't be more than ours. >> So, we meet recess. So, it's it's it's it's technically a waiver, but I don't know that the ordinance is allowed to
require that in the first place. >> It's if it's more than RSI, it's not allowed, >> right? >> Period. >> Okay. Well, I don't want to say that. >> Well, it it's I think the law is ridiculous, but that is what the law is. Yeah. >> Um,
regardless of with with that culdeac, it is designed efficiently with with the appropriate vehicles that would maneuver that and that was part of the application package site drawings that was submitted to the board. Um, meeting the ordinance require required would create a hardship um because it it would
require additional lot >> but we don't have to meet the >> but we don't have to meet the ordinance. So, and then also we submitted this to traffic and fire and there were no comments with regard to the condent. Correct? >> That's correct. >> From a grading and storm water
management perspective. Um I mentioned earlier that storm water runoff currently drains from the northern property line for West Park Avenue down to the south towards Klein Street. All overland flow undetained, uncontrolled. Um this project the proposed project
here due to the amount of disturbance in land is classified as a major development pursuant to potential stormwater ordinance as well as NJAC 7 colony 8 the storm water management regulations. So we're tasked with complying with the storm water management quantity quality
groundwater recharge and the green infrastructure requirements set forth by those standards to start. Each lot here is designed with a maximum 45% impervious coverage limitation. Um that is obviously an
assumed imperous coverage limitation. It's a maximum cap because we don't have a building or a layout proposed on each lot now. >> And what's the required max? >> 90%. >> Okay. >> Is the required maximum in the T1 zone. So, in the event someone built over the
45, they would be required to put their own storm water management system on their lot. >> That's correct. >> Okay. So, when you say that we're designed, you're saying that the um that the the basin as designed is assuming
the 45% coverage. Also, I don't Wasn't it change? Oh, >> the T1 didn't change. Just the residential stuff changed. So the T t1 so I I forgot. So the ordinance has changed and significantly reduced
coverages for residential but not for in the T1. So again if any homeowner who wants to build there would want to exceed the 45% and meet whatever the ordinance allows for, they'd have to
address on site. >> Yes. >> Any additional development. >> That's correct. And that 45 45% maximum impervious coverage number is similar to other residential zones within the township including the R4 zone which is right
next door. So in order to meet the storm water management requirements um I had mentioned the proposed development proposes a an above ground sand bottom infiltration basin which is considered a green infrastructure design element
pursuant to state and local codes. All the lots on this property are currently designed with catch basins or inlets in the rear yards to collect storm water runoff um from those specific lots.
So in essence, there will be no offsite drainage that will impact any adjacent properties um from an overland flow perspective. Whereas in the existing condition, storm water runoff currently does flow off of the site undetained on controlled towards Klein Street. Those
catch basins will collect that storm water runoff from the entire property and run out to that above ground infiltration that's located at the southeastern corner of or yeah southeastern corner of the property on lot 8. That basin is designed to infiltrate that storm water runoff to
meet the water quality and recharge standards and also detain it and release runoff for the higher storm events, the two 1000year storm events to reduce the peak rate runoff of of those designed storm events to the downstream infrastructure in Klein Street.
I'd mentioned that easement that's located on lot five, 15 foot wide drainage easement. That is the outfall from that storm water basin. Um it's an underground drainage pipe that discharges through lot 5 underground and connects to the infrastructure in Klein
Street. So in in essence with that with the decrease in peak runoff rate to to client street this project actually increases the capacity of the downstream infrastructure within client street and downstream of that which is which is a substantial improvement to the existing
condition that that is there today. >> Jen, my apologies. Did you say there were no comments from the fire marshal? No, I said there were comments but they didn't object to the with we can comply with the fire. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Yeah. No, I'm saying there was nothing with regard to the cold ass. >> Got it.
>> I'm sorry, Jeff. Can you clarify that? Um sure. >> You said the the capacity of the system downstream client street is is increased >> within Klein Street. We're decreasing the peak runoff rates for the design storm events necessary. So the pipe
capacity downstream of our site is is therefore increased. Yes. >> So essentially because we're sending less water there, it's going to allow for more water from everybody else. >> Yeah. It's all timing over it's a timing. Yes. Correct.
>> So you ready to start talking about the letters or >> No, I was I was really briefly on Yeah. on on lighting. Um again, you know, the design is is LED lighting fixtures is through a few street poles associated with the development. We don't want to
overlight the roadway. Um and so for that purpose, we don't have any spill over to any of the adjacent residential properties, >> but ultimately the street lighting would have to be accepted by the township and that would be reviewed by the township engineer in >> JCPN. That's correct. And it would have
to be a bonded appropriately as well for construction. And uh lastly, I'd mentioned the the landscaping earlier. Um the landscaping design has been prepared by a land licensed landscape architect within um my office at dynamic engineering. Um the
specific elements include a total of 102 total new plantings. Uh that includes 51 new shade trees, 17 ornamental trees, 29 evergreen trees, and um a few uh decidu deciduous trucks near the stormwater
basin area. >> Well, speaking about landscaping, in Jim's review letter, he pointed out that there was a shortfall of 17 4-in caliber trees. We can add those and be fully compliant. Correct. >> That is correct. Our plan is to revise
the plans if if approved as a condition approval to plant those 17 evergreen plantings along the southern southern property line adjacent to lot four provide a better screen. >> And let me go a step above that is what he also suggested that we do is uh move
the piping along the southern property line where it jogs towards the property line. Was it 10 ft or 15 ft? I don't remember. I think he said 10 ft to the north, which would allow us to then add even more trees along that property
line, which would essentially ensure an 18 ft side setback for any house that would be facing the east. >> That is correct. I would anticipate a 10-ft uh strip of land directly on the property line that would have a
staggered row of evergreen plantings and then another 8ft uh strip with the underground pipe for maintenance purposes. So essentially 18 ft along that property line would um be installed with improvements that could not be disturbed in the future for any housing expansions.
>> And the lot that we're speaking of it's because it's labeled on your plan as proposed lot F. >> Yes, it's the southwestern lot. >> Okay. So what that's going to do is it's going to allow us to plant more trees along that. And I did have a chance to
speak to the owner of 10 Klein Street and she had asked about we had discussed that we would probably because of the runoff now we'd also propose to put those trees up on a burm and then put some catch basins in front of the burn to burm to further ensure
that there'd be no runoff. >> That's correct. Actually one of the comments from um the board engineer Alex review letter was to ensure that no runoff would drain onto that lot for property. Um we certainly agree to do that uh to revise the grading as condition of approval and we can achieve
that by way of creating a small BM next to it and putting catch basins there to make sure that there is runoff collected without draining onto the property next door. >> Okay. And you know it's interesting Jim pointed something out that basically the for that and I'm speaking about that
particular lot. The way your ordinance is written, it says that any lot parallel to the street, I'm sorry, any lot line across from and parallel to the street is the rear lot line. So again, assuming that you can go
parallel to a culdeac. Uh since our frontage is on the culdeac, then arguably the south lot line would be considered our rear lot line. You have it labeled as side. Yes, right now it's labeled as side. It was it's it's a nuance in the ordinance
based on how rear yard is is defined. So, we would have to revise that >> and that would be 30 ft. But if a house is built and the architectural rear of the house is facing the west, then that actually changes the sideyard and the rear yard.
>> Yes. Conceivably, any house that's constructed here, the rear yard is going to be to the west because again, they're going to want to have as much room as possible >> for rear yard. intuitively. Yes. That's right. >> Yes. Correct. >> So ultimately, if and when a house is
constructed, that will become the sideyard. Although by purposes of the subdivision today with no house there, it's technically a rear yard. >> Just one other point, I'm sure all of the board members have a lot of questions. I want to let you finish, but before I forget, >> this Burm, how tall is this Burm going
to be? It won't be tall just because of how, you know, it's a relatively flat lot. >> Less than two feet because we're not asking for a variance. >> Correct. That's great. >> That's where I was going, Dad. Thank you. >> I knew where you were going. >> Okay. Um, and Jim, I think we hit
everything in your letter, right? Was there anything else in your >> Okay, good. And then going to Ben's letter. Um, and I had the opportunity to meet with Ben. We all did meet with Ben and Jim and everybody in tech review and
then I spoke with Jim with Ben again today. He has a comment with regard to 4A and an amended site plan. But after I explained that we're not developing this as one site, meaning each of the individual lots and each are going to be
graded separately. We wouldn't have the ability to submit a site plan. However, we would agree that any home construction would have to submit an asbuilt survey to show that it's consistent with whatever the township engineer would approve for the for the um
so I have a question maybe for Mark on this. Um if because there was discussion of you know the the applicant doesn't know if they're going to sell the homes individual the lots individually to homeowners to develop themselves or if
it will be to one developer to develop all the lots at once. If they do sell to one developer who develops all the lots at once then does that require an amended segment? >> I don't know that it would make a difference. >> Yeah because we would subdivide before
selling. So, we would just be selling them the subdivided lots potentially. And again, the the site plan we're seeking is relative to the roadway, to the trees, to the common areas. We're
not seeking site plan for the individual lots because we want to leave the um flexibility for those lots to be developed by a homeowner as they would want to. So again, to the extent that we change something, let's say with regard to the detention basin significantly
that you weren't comfortable moving administratively, then yeah, of course that's something that would have to come back. Or if the roadway configuration changed, well, that would have to come back, you know, or if we decided, you know, they didn't want to do street trees or they didn't want to do sidewalks that are shown on here, all of
that would have to come back. We just wanted the flexibility because I know that Mark's and we talked about this at length. Mark's um resolutions rightfully so say you're going to construct according to the plan. So I just wanted the testimony to
be very clear that the plan that the plan is with regard to all of the infrastructure or each of the homes where the driveway might go. That isn't decided yet because as you know if you have a house with a garage on the left side you want your
driveway on the left side. If you have it the other way you want it on the right side or some people may want a circular driveway. So I hope that answers your question. >> There going to be easements I assume. >> Of course all of it. >> Yep. >> Because there's going to have to be um
common responsibility for maintaining the >> Yeah. There's going to be there's going to have to be a homeowners association, >> which are you forming it or not? Because you I assume you're going to have to. >> Yeah, we would. >> All right. Yeah, >> that's we or you know again so anyone
who's going to typically anyone who is going to get the plats signed for reporting will have to have us posted all the bonds and establish the homeowners association subject to your review similar to the the one on park
and would have to um make sure all the easements are recorded and everything else. Yeah. So >> I mean I'm going to leave it assuming the board approves the oication. Doesn't have to be a homeowners association. This has to be some sort of an agreement. >> Oh, it does have to be. >> It has to be a home owners >> by law. Has to be.
>> Okay. >> Bill Fitzgerald taught me that >> many many many many years ago. >> Yeah, it does. Because it otherwise it who would own the lot if it's not a home association where the base is. >> That's true. Yes. Okay. >> I wasn't thinking on those lines, right?
Yes. Um, with regard to the lot being wooded or not wooded, we will uh revise the and I'm just going on to 4B. We'll revise the survey to show the trees themselves.
We are fine with compliance with C through F. I'm going to pass over traffic, not because it's not important, but because I have a different witness for that. >> Uh, six we can comply with. Correct. Correct.
>> Okay. Uh 7A you testified to 7B is going to with regard to basement, it's going to be on a lot by lot basis. Anyone who puts a basement in would have to show to the construction office that the uh water table would allow for the basement consistent with the ordinances as well
as the uh building codes 7C. We did send the phase one to Ben. So he does have that. It does indicate in there and it was moved into evidence that there's no environmental concerns on the property. >> Is the Is the Crown Street house part of the homeowners association?
>> No, >> it's not. It's so it is separate. >> No, the homeowners association will in fact own the easement over the street house. >> Okay. That's what I'm just clarifying. >> All right. But all the rest of the lots are part of it, including the existing um
>> existing house. You >> happy with? >> Yeah, I agree. I'm just making sure. >> Yep. Um, with regard to the EIS and significant tree specimens, I don't know that 92 applies when it's before the board, but we can offer that. We don't
believe that there are any, >> right, Jim? That doesn't apply once we're before the board. It's the site plan ordinance section. >> Yeah. >> Okay. And then the outside agency approvals obviously would be required. Oh, we did. Did we get free soil? I think yes, we did get freehold soil
certification. It actually came in the mail today. So, I did submit that uh this afternoon to Nicole. >> So, as it relates to the affirmative engineering testimony, I would certainly open Jeff up for any questions from the
board. And just reminding you, I have another witness here for traffic. >> All right. Before we get started, I just have a question for Jim. For the board's edification, can you give a a brief overview of what is allowed in the T1 zone? be besides single family
residential. >> Um there are offices that are allowed, home offices and general offices. >> Um I believe medical offices are not permitted >> but general offices would be. >> I have it for you. You want to just read from it? >> Yeah.
>> No, professional officers are >> professional. They're not medical. >> That's what he said. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> He said non-medical office. >> Yeah. I don't know. I don't do they have >> professional medical offices are professional offices are different than medical offices home professional offices and
professional offices. So you could have a real estate office, you could have an engineering office, a planner's office, attorney's office. You could also have somebody with a home professional office, which means they could have their office in their home
but but reside in the home. >> So these these building lots then and this now goes back to our our applicant here. These lots are not necessarily going to be residential. There's nothing to say that if someone wants to buy an individual lot and build a planner's
office that they could do that. >> No, they would not be able to do that. The homeowners association would not permit that. >> The homeowners association haven't been formed yet, right? What if they change their >> Well, they're saying they'll make that a condition. >> No, that that would be these would be residential. Okay. No question. These
would all be residential lots. >> Okay. >> That would be a condition of >> without a doubt. I mean, they would have to be because again, Mark's letters always say that we're bound by any testimony offered. The testimony you're going to hear from the traffic engineer and the testimony as it relates to
everything we talked about is only for residential development, these single family homes. So, if the board would approve this, you'd be ensuring that one, the garden center that a garden center wouldn't purchase it and continue the non-performing use that's there, or two, no one could come in and develop an
office building there. >> But are we banning home offices as part of the HOA? Well, I think home offices are permitted in all residential zones, aren't they? Are they not? >> No. >> Okay, then. Yes, we're we're prohibiting home offices.
>> So, no standalone offices, right? >> But home office is okay. >> No, the opposite. So, what we're suggesting is we're developing it consistent with the R4. So, to the extent that the R4 does not allow home offices, then no home offices. >> Okay. >> I'm sorry if that wasn't clear.
>> One other thing, middle deja vu here. Uh lot a the existing driveway is non-conforming and that it's almost right on the property line. It's supposed to be five feet away. So that's just something for the board's knowledge
that it's not affected by the subdivision, but it is there. >> That's a variance condition. >> Yeah, it's a variance condition. >> Okay. All right. Well, I'll open up to the rest of the board for questions because I'm sure you have some. >> I'll go first. Um, can you talk more
about lot F and this where the house is going to be facing? It's going to be facing a different direction. >> No. So, I the short answer is I don't know. But the the long Where can I stand that you can see this? The longer answer is is
that if it faces if it faces directly to the culde-sac, then this is the rear yard and it has to be 30 feet from this. If the architectural I mean you can have an L-shaped house for example that kind of goes along the curve and the back of
the house is facing this way then this becomes a sideyard. So it's really a function of how the house is constructed and architecturally what it's going to look like. Um, but you know, either this is going to be a technical rear yard or
it's going to be a sideyard. But realistically, because of the depth from here to here, it's likely going to use this as the rear yard, which coincides with the rear yards all the way around it as well. So, it makes sense for that to be the rear yard.
>> I have a question. um the house on Klein Street that they granted the easement for the guardians that are behind it. >> Um are they is that house part of this um application? >> Yeah, it is. It has to be by law. >> So um the owner when they were
approached to um grant an easement, were they aware that they were asking for eight lots in their backyard? >> Yes. So let me >> or are they here with the application as my question? >> We're here with the application. So what had happened was originally uh the owner and the applicant was
pursuing a an easement over the property and the negotiations for the easement rose to a level of cost for the easement that was so high that instead she sold us the land. So the applicant owns that
lot right now. how structure the applicant's house >> it is literally whether it's the applicant or the or the principal of the applicant it may be in a private name but again the the the principles who
control the applicant own that house >> and when you say eight lots there's not going to be eight new houses back there just you know there it's it's going to be six >> could you talk more about lot eight like What did you What is this tan rectangle?
Like is that dirt right now? >> No, that's the that's the basin. >> So that is not going to be a lot developed. >> It's going to be a lot. >> It's going to be a lot because the basin has to be on its own lot. But no, it will not be a house. It can never be a house. >> Okay.
>> And was there something that you wanted him to go in greater detail with with regard to the basin? There's only >> Yeah, if you just know because you said you're that's part of the variance, right? The basin. >> No, the the lot shape and sizes because
you're >> right. You as it relates to the basin lot, your ordinance mandates development sizes anticipating a house. You don't have an ordinance that regulates basin lots. >> Okay. Um, but to just go one step
further. So, what we're really proposing is only is six new houses. Everything else is an existing house or a basin. >> Well, as long as you're talking about the basin, I'm looking at the uh the uh storm water management water quality
groundwater recharge analysis report that you have in your pull out maps. The second one, the this little I don't even know what to call this. The inflow into the basin. And maybe maybe I'm asking the wrong question. We'll start. The
other maps that you have make it look like there is a fence around this basin. Is that an accurate reflection? >> Yes. >> How high is the fence and how deep is the basin? Let's start there. >> The fence will have to be designed in accordance with the fall protection requirements. Um so it'll it'll be a 4ft
high fence around around the basin. Um, and the depth of the basin. Um, right now it's it's it's a retained basin is a retaining wall around it. It's excavated down into the ground. Um, hence the need for a wall uh for a fence uh for fall protection. Um, the basin is about
roughly 4 to 4 and 1/2 ft deep from top of wall to bottom of the wall. >> Okay. Um, so this inflow from this map and and I can't tell is this pavers or rip wraps or what am I looking at for the
>> May I ask you Mr. May I ask you to on the bigger plan to look at the the grading plan because I think that might let me just see I think it's sheet not grading it's the drainage plan on sheet seven.
>> I think that that might be easier for everyone to follow along. This is should be the same map. >> Yeah. >> Just to make it easier for everybody. So, you're talking about the the basin access. >> The basin. Yes. >> Okay. So, what is that going to be? Grassrete. What is that going to be?
>> It'll be a reinforced grass paver essentially. Yeah. So, so a vehicle could get down there in case they need to do any more maintenance activities. >> Yeah. >> And so, is that going to be blocked with a gate to keep people out of there or is it just going to be open? It'll be gated. Correct.
>> Yeah. And if you if you look closely, is it a right above the 50? There's two swinging gates actually drawn in there. >> Mhm. >> Okay. >> So, it's a double wide gate that's presumably about 8 ft wide that's going to let the vehicle in.
>> Correct. It's a Yes. The the axis is 10 feet. >> 10. >> So, yes. >> And you said that this is going to be a sand bottom basin. So, what is the uh expected maintenance for it in terms of how often are they going to I have to
have people in there? You have an idea? >> Yeah, it's it's a pretty um straightforward uh stormwater management measure that's been around for quite a few years now. Um, usually they'll they'll the the state would require you to submit annual reports um depicting
how many times you maintain the base and technically you have to send in somebody there to inspect it and make sure it was clean after a specific rainfall event. Say it was like a after the water quality storm event essentially. So it would be a pretty regularly maintained basin. um even for the smaller events.
Just to holistically though, for the just for general maintenance purposes, you want an engineer out there probably twice a year at at at minimum. >> And just to follow up on that, that's why we're required to have an operations and maintenance manual, which the D now requires that we actually record it
against the property. >> That's correct. >> That's part of the deed restriction. And that's why we need the homeowners association because by law, we're not allowed to have a single homeowner responsible for a basin that's serving an entire community. We have to have a homeowners association that each of the community members contributing to the
basin are going to pay into. And then they have the ma same management company that would manage the association conceivably would contract with whomever would be responsible for maintenance of the basin. And I will tell you that most of the easements that we've granted in
the past um have required that the township be granted the right but not the obligation to go in and take care of anything and charge back the homeowners association. >> And would you agree the condition that the homeowners association has to submit the uh the maintenance updates every
single year to the township engineer? >> Sure. >> Do we have any basins like this anywhere else in town? Ocean Park >> everywhere >> in town. I don't know. >> Yeah, >> it's it's pretty >> where it's owned by
>> Yeah. So, Toll Brothers. >> Okay. >> That's a that's a there's several of them like this. Um, every development that was done post, I would say 1995 or so >> has a lot dedicated
>> either has a lot dedicated to it or the basin is constructed on someone's lot, but it's maintained by the homeowners association. So, yeah, this is this is the only way now to subdivide property is is with this layout with the ex with
the exception of um if you're going to do the individual treatment on the lots >> and then there be common I don't know if you I don't know if you were sitting here councilwoman I'm sorry if you were sitting here for I know if you were
sitting here for um >> when it was the I think it was a 10 lot subdivision vision for uh Park Boulevard where the ROF house is. >> I was not. >> Okay. So, similar to that, a homeowner association is formed to maintain all of
the drainage infrastructure throughout the the property, but the one that would be most notable to you would be something like um Tall Brothers. >> Okay. Thank you. >> And just one last question about the basin. this emergency spillway in the south eastern corner. Where is that?
Is that spilling out into the neighbor yard? Where's that gone? >> It's It's in a true emergency situation. So, we It would spill out between the two property lines and the neighbor's yard and then drained down towards Ply Street. Um so, in a true emergency
situation where the basin is failing, um it it needs it needs relief. It needs somewhere to d to to drain out to. So that's that's essentially where it would flow to essentially east and then run towards client street. >> But it could go into the neighbor. >> Yes.
>> But which which neighbor? >> Uh let me >> uh lot between lot 25 and lot six. You mind? >> Sure. >> Right over this. >> Sorry. Right over here.
>> And then >> how are we feeling about that? >> Well, the I guess the question would be how in in that situation, is there some type of channel or anything for for water to spill into to get to Fle Street
or what's what's back there? There's well there's between every yard along Klein Street there is there are swells that run between the two properties. Um so
just that runoff would discharge out of that emergency spill run along the common property line towards Klein Street um and and make its way down that way. And that's in a true emergency situation again. Right. If the basin was failing this this basin is designed to contain the whole 100redyear design
storm. And that's not only the 100year design storm now, it's the 100red-year design storm in the projected condition in the year 2100. So, it's an extreme extreme emergency measure. Um there's no other outlet for the storm water runoff. Um what we're doing here is providing a
very well-designed system that provides emergency outlets within the basin itself. This is just a last condition. And when you have a a storm that comes in that's the 2100 year storm 100 year storm everything is flooding. I mean this it's it's like a catastrophe
scenario. So >> I mean ocean's had some very bad flooding in the last 5 years. What do you think exceeded the 100redyear storm? What did we hit Jack? 500y year something like that >> in that September storm. He's saying a 100year storm projected in 2100 which is
>> much worse than 100year storm today >> and that's because the D requires us to now under the storm water manager >> correct and I guess that is this compliant under uh the NJPAC real rules. >> It is uh under the NJ well it's it's compliant under the the pending NJPAC
real rules are saying >> they're in place well they they're grandfathered until July. >> Yeah. Yeah, they are. Yeah, the design is for the NJPAC rules. Correct. Yes. >> And soil erosion certificate. We do have our soil erosion certification to them.
They they do review off-site drainage and and downstream erosion as well. So, they certify the plans. We just got that letter in the mail um this afternoon. >> So, I'm just looking at this map and the topography and I'm looking at the elevation lines. Which one are you on?
>> I'm still on on page seven. >> Okay. that spillway went. We're going from 49 ft. We're going from 50 ft. 498 ft. 48 ft, but not towards Klein towards Fanwood. So, are you putting something
on that shared property line between the houses on Fanwood that would direct it south towards Klein? I'm not sure I'm understanding. >> So, what he's saying is the topo is going this way. >> So, >> so how are you getting it this way?
this way >> around this way. >> Okay. So, we don't show the >> we don't show we don't show it all the way. Yeah, we show the topo just 20 ft beyond the property line which was in accordance with the township of ordinance. Um, but again, this is
the we I could show you on the plan view. It does have a little bit of of a curve towards the south. >> Sure. >> Well, actually, more importantly, show Ben too. >> Start with Ben and then you tell me he
agrees. >> I do have Mr. Can I take three minutes? >> Sure. >> You triggered something that I have a question I want to ask the engineer because I think it's going to address break.
Yeah, we're uh three minutes. >> Uh Councilwoman Kaplan, >> sorry, what are we? >> We're doing roll call here. >> You're voting in favor, >> Mr. Mr. Gil >> here. >> Mr. Goslin here. >> Mr. Mell, >> yes. >> Miss Valente
>> here. >> Uh Mr. May >> here. >> Vice Chairman Palutes >> here. >> And Chairman Defilia >> here. Mr. Defilia. I'm sorry that I always say name. I always >> it's been 40 something years of you know >> I know but I so first of all uh you
raised an issue that is causing me concern and as a result I'm going to let the board know that I want to put a pin in the stormwater management discussion because we intend to return to you with a revised plan addressing the concern that you raised with regards to
emergency spillway. That being said, I do have my traffic engineer here and I know there's a number of public that are here and I was hoping that you would allow us to continue so we can get their comments so when revising plans, which
we know we have to do, hopefully we can revise them in a way to incorporate any concerns they may have or the board may have. So again, a great point with regard to the spillway. That one got by me. Now that it was brought to my attention, I I'm not going to try and
make an argument that I know is not a valid one and waste everybody's time. So, we want to have the opportunity to address it properly for you. >> Sure. So, MOO, I I think what we're going to do is we're going to have the board ask any more questions of your witness and our professionals. Then, we will open it up to questions from the
public. And just so the public understands how this goes, when we open it up for questions for the public, this is a multi-step process. You can come and ask questions of this witness. This is not your chance to make statements about how you feel about the project. It's a chance to ask questions, ask
technical questions, get a better understanding of what's going on. At the end of the hearing, after the applicant has all their witnesses, we will provide all the public a chance to share all of their thoughts and feelings on it as well. But when we open up to the public tonight for this witness, it's it's just
questions to help you get a better understanding and help the board have a better understanding of what's going on. So with that I return to the board. >> Can we ask Mr. Chair, can we invite the public to ask their questions now? Come back to us. >> Sure.
>> I mean they stick to see you know on that and allow us to ask >> unless there's any other burning questions on the board that you have to ask right now. >> All right. Well then I would invite any members of the public who have questions for this witness >> or anything you've heard to come on up. You just have to introduce yourselves.
Your name, your address. Mark, are you gonna swear in? >> I'm gonna swear in because invariably it'll be statements. So, >> do you swear testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the true self? You got >> I do. So, >> and just state your name for the record. >> Fiori Pandora, >> I'm sorry. You're going to have to spell
>> Pandora. F I O R E P A N D U R I. >> P A N D U R I. >> And your address, Mr. Pori >> to Garrett, please. >> Thank you. >> And could you just show me where that is in relation to us, just so I know? I mean, I went to Ocean High School.
>> Okay. So, you're here. Okay. >> So, I have a question about the drainage that's out of you said it's running along here. >> So, it's going to be underground. >> Yeah. And is that right on my property line? >> So, the question is how far is that set back from his property line? The pipe
that we're putting underground. >> Can you show us on this map so the board can see? Sorry. The angles. >> Mr. P, why don't why don't you have Mr. Dory, show us what his property is on that map so the board sees it. >> I'm right here. >> Okay.
>> And if they're running right along that property line, that's not helping me at all. >> Well, so again, where is the pipe in relation to that property line up against Mr. Pandora's property? How far off of it are you? the the pipe is roughly 10 feet off of the property line
into our property and they're the inverts or the the the grades are lower than on your property line. So they're lowlying so that water can get collected within those inlets and drain to the basin on the on the site. >> All right. And is that always going to have water in it sitting there? Mosquitoes, everything else. Is that
going to happen? >> No, it's it's designed to the the basin is designed to infiltrate runoff into the groundwater table. So that runoff should hit those inlets and clear out to the basin. Can I just offer something to Mr. Pandora? Mr. Pandora, and forgive
me. This is just a pipe. It's not to hold the water there. It's just to run the water that collects here that's already going on your property. >> But isn't there all grates? Isn't that >> No, the the grates are just to go in, not to come out. So, it's to go in and then it's tilted. So, it's going to end
up here. >> The whole purpose, but it's open to the pipe below. It's wide open to the pipel or graded to the pipelated. Yeah, >> it's it's great graded to >> How big of a grate are they? >> The grates are
>> got enough problems already with those. I don't need more. >> They're they're your standard yard yards. So, they're two feet by two feet. >> Okay. That's pretty big. That's big. All right. Yeah, that's a problem for me anyway. That's one problem I have.
And just to ask a question, if the water is currently going there over land and potentially gathering in that area on the land, >> that's going to be far worse for mosquitoes than if you're actually letting it drain underground and bring it to the basin. >> Absolutely. Yes. >> So, we're improving the condition.
>> We are improving the condition. >> I think if water sitting in there, it's not improving. It's going to be like a nice little water for them to always be there. Again, your testimony is is that the water is not sitting there, that the pipe is actually on an elevation, so it
drains into the basin. >> Yeah. The the what we proposed here from a grading perspective is actually mimicking the existing condition, except we're now collecting it in an inlet instead of running. >> Well, the basin itself is built 4 and 1/2 ft down, but that's on the other
side of the of the applicant's property from your house. >> This is Yeah. Down here. >> Yes. So at that point though, Hal, you're pretty close to grade. You're probably right on grade. >> That's about 2 and 1/2 ft deep at those uh drainage inlets.
>> So and and Ben, you >> So how big is that pipe though? How big of a piping would it have to take? >> It's a 12 in plastic pipe. >> So again, and Ben, you represent the board, not the applicant. So just to to help Mr. Pandora here if the water's
currently flowing onto his property from our property and we're collecting it and running it at a pitch to the basin. So, do you agree that that's a better condition than letting the water sit or run onto his property? Yeah, if there's standing water there, then then the
system is intended to uh collect that water from the the ground, pipe it underground, and bring it to the the basin that that >> I understand. I just I understand that as long as it's not sitting there, >> that's going to be a big problem.
>> Okay. We'll have questions later, but not comments. Thank you. >> All right. Other questions from the public? Come on up. Take the microphone. >> Just ask you to introduce yourself, your address, and Mark will swear you in, and
then you can ask away. >> All right, sir. Do you swear in testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth? Nothing but the true self you got? >> I do. >> I just state your name for the record? >> John Jstone. >> Is that J O H N S T O N E? >> Yes. >> And your address, Mr. Johnstone?
>> Uh 11 Klein Street. >> Thank you. Go ahead. And can you why don't you just show us on the map where where your house is so that everybody can get it. >> Um >> uh my house is uh directly across this is >> Did you say it was this one? >> Uh my house is the corner here. The
corner of Hullbrook and and Klein Street. >> Okay. >> So it's at this house right here. So, uh, there's been several statements, uh, made to the effect that there's surface water drainage that occurs from this property over here over to Klein
Street. Um, I'd like to know how those uh, what was the engineering basis for those statements being made? >> It's it's based on the topographic survey that our our company had prepared.
>> Okay. the top topograph topographical survey uh probably does not consist of uh observations of storm water during major storm events. >> I I I've been to the site on numerous occasions. I haven't been standing there
during like a 100redyear storm event, but >> Okay. Because I I have lived on on Klein Street uh for 47 years. >> So I have seen quite a few uh storm events. I've never seen any surface water uh
drainage over to Klein Street. Um all the drainage that I've seen comes approximately from uh Gity downhill towards the dead end. Uh comes from probably two houses up uh Hullbrook down
towards Klein Street, turns the corner and runs down to the dead end. >> But not from our property, right though? What you're saying, all this storm water, you're seeing water run down the street. >> Sure. But but but an assertion was made that u
this storm water drainage uh approach that's being taken for this development will improve the storm water situation at the dead end here. And I I submit that uh this property develop this property as
developed here um has never contributed to the storm water problem here. And that if if it contributes anything at all to the drainage problem here, then it will be a contribution to the drainage down here. It will not be an
improvement to the drainage on Klein Street. Uh Klein Street floods to the depth. uh at my driveway at my curb. Klein Street floods to uh 10 in at the curb. Uh in front of the house next to
me, it probably floods uh 14 to uh 16 in at the curb. >> So, since Mark was right, you gave you gave some statements. I just want >> Yeah, just just so just so the board knows. I mean that's why I usually don't uh I restrict them to to to questions
only because invariably stability and I'm not think it's the right thing to say. >> So be because you gave all the statements I just have a couple questions based on what you said. So again that's great that you don't see sheet flow over our property into Klein Street. >> Sure. >> The testimony was though that the
grading of our property whether or not it gets there fast enough so you see it sheet flowing like you do down the gutter. >> Sure. We're not saying it does. What we're saying is the way this is graded, it all grades this way. That's where the water's going because water runs
downhill. >> So if this is the high point and this is the low point, our water is getting there. That's where it is currently going. So if you have an existing condition now where all this water is coming from here, we're not going to
have any impact on that because again this is caused by offsite that's not related to us. >> Okay. to the extent that there is water getting there now the state law requires us that whatever water is getting there today we have to reduce we have to hold
it on site so it goes off of our site in less in more time so basically it has to be less concentration over a longer period of time so whatever's currently going there whether you see it or not is going to now be held here so then this
was all going to still happen we're not having any effect on And then this will eventually come out to here presumably after the height of the storm. Is that an accurate representation at late Carson's turns? >> That that is. And if I may add to that too, Klein Street is a crown roadway and
you're on the southbound side of Klein Street, right? So >> the the runoff draining off of our property at the Klein is essentially being collected on the northern side of Klein Street. So, you may not truly realize >> it is, but during a major storm event, uh the entire uh the entire width of
Klein Street is flooded uh up practically to um uh number 10 uh Klein Street. >> Right. So you understand that when he testified that it was going to be better, it was because the water that we currently have going there, whether it's
overland in a fast sheet flow like on the street or not, is going to be held on our site and let out in a slower pace after most of that heavy storm water has already gone through. So >> Okay. So you're saying none of the water will be added to Klein Street during the
rain event? No, that the same level of intensity that goes there today from our property is now going to be retained on our site. Correct. >> Yeah. And and and runoff released from our site will be a much reduced uh peak runoff rate to the
system in Klein Street. >> Okay. That's the part I don't agree with, but that's that's my opinion. Uh did you >> you know I have seen events where uh worst case runoff from Westfield actually flooded through the backyards of Westfield came through Hullberrook
and contributed to what you're talking about. But I've never seen that event. Uh >> no no no. We're not saying that there was ever a a river of water coming off of our site. We never said that. But during a rainstorm event, our site is
invariably contributing to what's being collected in Klein Street. >> I I just believe that all that uh there is no roadway here. All of that runoff goes through the ground uh and becomes groundwater before it gets to
Klein Street. My opinion. So anyway, I I think I've adequately expressed my time, expressed my >> And just to add one more thing, it's going to continue being groundwater because it's all going to be piped. So any groundwater that was going to that
area is going to continue being groundwater. It's just going to come out slower because we're going to have a 4ft deep basin to hold it on site in the meantime. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Other questions from the public?
>> Mr. Can I just add something to to that last discussion? Um, I think Mr. Johnstone, I think I got your name right, uh, brings up a a good point and and I had a conversation with Mr. Havering um, a few minutes ago, uh, that
although the the stormwater management report demonstrates that they are meeting the uh, required reductions um that that are required by the NJB. uh the the concentration of flow goes through one pipe to to one drainage inlet on Klein
Street. So all the flow is going to end up in one spot whereas previously it was it was you know running off in in different directions sheeting off the the existing land. Um so we don't have a
a a demonstration of the existing pipe network uh handling that concentration of flow. now in in the major storm events. So that was something that that I had mentioned and Mr. Haberman uh I think believe he's going to address that
when they make their stormwater revisions as well. >> Yes. Yeah. We we we spoke right before the or I guess during the the pause there. Um one item is the spillway that we I believe that we have a solution just looking through the design and thinking how we can propose that and
we'll return to the board and present that. Um and the other element and yes I'll I'll work with Mr. Mr. Malik on on the um just to provide the the capacity calculations to ensure that it's adequate. >> Right. And that'll that'll involve Greg, I assume, because I think his office probably mapped it. All right.
>> Or do you have that? >> Yeah, I don't have that. >> Okay. >> And obviously those revisions will be in more than 10 days before the hearing for adequate review by our experts. >> Yes. >> All right. Let me just swear you in. >> Who's running the show?
Do you swearing testimony? >> The swearing testimony you're about to give will be the truth to hold truth. Nothing but the truth of God. >> I do. >> Just state your name for the record. My >> name is Tom R, 2010 Fanwood Street. >> Which if I >> could you spell the last name? >> Reu simple. Can't get any simpler than that.
>> Okay. And your address again? >> 2010 Fanwood. >> 2010 >> my house is right here. So to the southwest of the uh the culdesac. So um the only re I did have
an opportunity with Jen and the staff to uh ask a couple of questions and there's a follow-up question I had. I apologize. We were right in the middle of planning for a snowstorm when we had our meeting. So I was a little bit distracted being
the director of OEM. Um, just the question I had was you had mentioned that there is a pipe going from Klein Street and I believe it's into an easement somewhere. Um, where is that? Do you know?
>> The there's a few inlets here that collect and route through they route between these two properties here. There's an easement in place. Um, >> and that's the Eastman to who? The township. >> I'm not aware. We're just
>> Let me see. >> Yeah, we don't show it on this exhibit. >> I believe it's on some of the mapping between >> Yes. >> Okay. So, it's part of the municipal infrastructure. >> Yes. >> Okay. So, do you know how big that pipe
is? Um, and is it still functional? The only reason I ask is because I've been seeing I've lived in this town in this uh in this house for 40 years and I've been seeing a fair amount of additional flooding over the years just like Mr.
Johnson has and um especially on the 29th of September to the 2023 which was the big um so I have a lot of water in my backyard and I'm just trying to figure out if there's something I need to worry about there. >> All right. So you're worried about the pipe from Klein to Fanwood,
>> right into the system. The system is wo if you look at the system on Fanwood and I'm sure Ben would concur with me, it's wfully good. >> That's one of the things if that's where our water is going that we're going to have to look at and show that there's capacity.
>> Appreciate it. Thank you. >> And Ben, this system that they're linking into discharges into the popular >> uh I Yeah, I believe that's where it ends up. It's there's a lot of residential houses between this property and Popular Brook.
So, I don't have the the township stormwater map in front of me, but that's most likely where it goes. >> Okay. >> Come on up. >> Want to take your seat now? >> All right. Swear you in. and name and
address for the folks who don't know. >> Let me swear you in. Do you swear any testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth about the truth of God? >> Yes. >> And just state your name for the record. >> My name is Amy Stewart and I live at 10 Klein Street. >> I'm sorry. 10 >> Klein Street. >> Klein Street. Thank you. Can you just
point out for everyone which street that is? Which house it is? >> That's me. Right. >> Right next door. >> Um I mean, can you just talk to me about the Ving a little bit more? like how it functions and what it's going to look like and what happens if it doesn't
work. >> Sure. Um I guess here um so the storm water basin it's it's it's excavated below the surrounding grade. So in
actuality you won't see it from from your property from the properties up front along Klein Street. In addition, we're planting a bunch of those evergreen plantings along the property line in back of your lot as well as in back of the property next to um lot
five. Um so that'll be screened from the um adjacent neighboring properties. Um that basin is designed. We performed a number of what's called storm water test bits on site to make sure that we have >> you know Amy used to be the board secretary for many years and she's currently the deputy clerk. So she's
read a few test bits. you had them submitted. >> We we we performed a number of infiltration uh readings on the soils there and found that it was more than adequate to uh perk the storm water runoff into the groundwater table. So that's why we've come we've designed this sand bottom storm water basin so
that when runoff from the entire property gets routed there partially um infiltrates into the groundwater table through that sand layer and the the big the larger storm events. There's an outlet control structure a big concrete box that controls um the release of the
higher storm events to a pipe that goes underground >> and it's required to completely empty within 72 hours. 72 hours is is the requirement and um you know there's maintenance obligations that we're required to abide by based on the operation of maintenance manual that we'll have to record on the deed of the
property. Um there's inspections that are required and outlined in there that have to be done by annually. Um but also after certain raintorm events. Um, so in the event if if something's not functioning, you know, anybody can make a complaint and to to Ocean Township, file that complaint and approach, you
know, the HOA or the property owner, say there's an issue, and contact that owner to make a corrective action. >> So you said it was raised, but it's not raised. It's >> it's excavated into the ground. Correct. >> It's dug out instead of raised. But so the four and 1/2 ft is down
>> and then fence around. It's It's four and a half ft down and then the fence around the edge of it so no one can fall into it >> and then bushes around. >> Yep. Yes. >> On your side. Yes. >> Any more questions from the public or this witness?
Seeing none. Any more questions from the board? You do say we're putting six houses there potentially and we have six slots. I think lot B, C, D, F, G, and H. Is that correct?
>> Yes. >> Are they all conforming those six? >> They're conforming from a lot area perspective. So they need >> lot B conforming. >> It is. It meets the minimum 10,000 square foot lot area requirements. Correct.
>> Lot C conforming. Yes. >> Well, wait. But they're not for lot area. Not performing, right? >> No, no. Just for lot area. >> Just for lot area. >> You need variances for them. So if you'd like them to go through >> No. So if you'd like them to go through lot by lot and what variance we need to
explain what they are, we're happy to do that. And again, if you look at I don't know if you got it or not, it's my notice goes through it in painful detail. Let's start with
Yeah, we've already said lot A with the front yard >> lot. Great. Um, so lot B up. >> L is actually fully conforming. >> L is fully conforming. >> Correct. Yep. And C,
>> lot C has a minimum lot width variance uh for not meeting the 100 foot minimum requirement. It is at 93.2 ft. >> How about
D has the same uh variance relief requirement that width is at 94.1 ft. Lot F. >> Lot F contains a lot width
C variance for 93.3 ft as well as what was classified in Mr. Higgins letter as a technical variance for for the lot depth based on the rear yard um how the rear yard set back is defined >> right on the property. >> Correct. Yes. So how it is without a
building on the site, the depth is technically from the street to the southern property line. So it's it's more restrictive. So that lot depth is um 62 ft >> and Mr. Flu is just just to be clear. I
know Mr. Higgin's license is a term technical thing. I know you mentioned that you know a variance or it's not a variance or a technicality. >> Technicality. It's not a It's not a technical there. We still need it. >> It's a technicality based on the
>> definition of a rear yard situated. >> I just don't want the board to think that somehow it's less important of a barrier than technical. >> Well, no, in fairness again, the the ordinance is drafted for
conforming lot shapes and you know, square lots. So when you have a culdeac that comes in and you have a lot that isn't square to start with, the configuration of the lots are a function of where the road has to be and and what
it does. So it's technical based on the dimensions of the proposed lot. >> I I was I'm not disputing that. What I'm saying >> No, he said they're all the same. They're not all the same. >> It's still a variance. >> 100%. >> So I don't want the board to think that somehow because it's somehow a technical
variance that is not as important as another varian. >> No, no, no. They're all equal. >> Yes. >> Go back to lot G. >> I agree with that. >> Uh lot G is fully conforming. >> That's fully. >> Yes.
>> Lot H. >> Lot H contains a lot width variance as well. with variances on the culdeac slide not on the >> but we need lot D F >> and H for lot >> require
>> correct >> so just to piggy back is why not just eliminate a lot >> it's a function of
you know there's there's a proposed roadway on this lot on this property as well so it's function of the rightway width you have for the road and how deep that you can make these lots based on the width of the roadway. So you lose some depth there, but again it's it's
still consistent with the the R4 in terms of the lot width definition. It's consistent with the R4 zoning standards which is >> you make a good point. >> Yeah. Yes, we could have significantly oversized lots, but we were also looking
at you can't look at one element of the ordinance requirement. Meaning, you can't look at lot with in a vacuum and then lot depth in a vacuum. You have to look at in totality. When you look at what the governing body at the time intended for development here, they said
you need 10,000 square foot lots. And again, this is whether it's an office or uh whether it's an office or whether it's a residential home. What the testimony has been so far is is that because we're developing it consistent with the R4
homes and we're foreclosing any rights of the office, the 100 foot width isn't necessary because we're on this internal roadway. But to just also go a step further when you look at lot width the purpose of it is you know to have the
the the uniform streetscape that you don't have you know one little one big and and it's uniform in this particular instance lot with variances the only impact are within this one neighborhood. This isn't a through street. This isn't you know an existing street where cars
are going. These lot with variances are a function of only what this one development is. So the impact of it is none as it relates to the character of the neighborhood because it's essentially creating its own neighborhood mimicking the neighborhoods
that surround it. >> Okay. So again, that's not gospel, but I'm that's the that's the applicant's position is we're trying to give the appropriate density that the ordinance complied and work within the lot shape
we have as well as the requirements for the roadway and the basins. And if we didn't have to do a basin, we wouldn't need this variant. >> But because we have to do a basin, we have to fit it all in within that confine in order to achieve what the ordinance says. you can have x number of
lots on this size land provided you can make it work. Now again, if we were in a neighborhood and every and we're on a straight linear street and every house next to us at 150 ft and we were just creating six lots at 90. Well, that
would be different. That would be an impact to the character. But here, this is the character. >> Thank you. >> Did you consider any other layouts when you were designing this? Was there any other was it all culde-sac down the middle?
>> We we conceptually we looked at a few different layouts, but we found that with the roadway in the middle of the site, it was the most efficient layout to create the the amount of lots that were desired. >> But I'm sorry, Mr. Pilia. Did I say it right?
>> You're getting there. I think the G is throws me up every time. Um I don't know that there is another way to do it. >> Oh, I don't know if there is either. I'm just asking if you know if this was just a function of of you know the the
simplest design or if there have been other ones that were might have resulted in in less variances required but maybe lost. just trying to think through because some of these lot lines are a little funky. I think we can all agree. Um
yeah, just curious >> what I think. Yeah, >> make a suggestion is that it's clearly there's clearly possible to do a fully conforming subdivision with one less lot. And maybe what the board needs to see is
what that would look like and compare the foot the potential footprints of residences on a fully conforming subdivision as opposed to the footprints of residences on what's being proposed here. and also whether or not the larger
lots would also permit other accessory structures such as small courts, uh, swimming pools with patios and so on to just so the board can see that the impacts of a fully conforming
subdivision versus a versus what's proposed here, >> right? And when I say fully conforming, the uh drainage basin could become part of a residential lot and just be an easement. So that residential lot could be much
larger also. And that's the type of thing that I think needs to be looked at. I started looking at it, but I don't want to advise the board in the vacuum. >> No, no, no. And that's and that's fair. And I I think again
until we got here and got all the feedback from the neighbors and from the public, we could only go on the feedback that we had from all of the professionals. And I think all of the professionals didn't necessarily see this as a heavy lift just as it relates to the lot width because we're meeting
the density and you know, we have the ample lot. But I think it's important for you to see that if we did lose a lot, what it could potentially mean by way of much bigger houses that are out of character and or a lot more, you know, tennis court, swimming pools, and
the like that maybe wouldn't fit necessarily. So, I think what we might need to do is take a look at showing what could be developed on the lots, not what we're proposing to develop, but what could be developed on these lots versus what could potentially be developed if we did lose a lot and we
had much bigger lots. So, that's something we'll definitely take a look at. >> I have a question for the engineer. What number like quantity um constitutes to need a basin? like the second you do two houses, the second you do three houses, you do one house, you don't need a
basin. >> So, it's interesting. This project is unique because we do have a public street. So, one of the main reasons we need that basin is because we need to treat the runoff from that public street. >> Okay? >> So, if you're designing a single family
lot like off of an existing roadway, you could probably do some kind of a seepage pit in the backyard or something depending on the size. still a basin. It's still a basin. It's just a different kind of basin. Any development requires storm water management course everything. >> So I think what you're asking is when do
we have to do this above ground basin? >> Yeah. I think that's just a concern for people whose backyards back up to it. You're looking out your bed bedroom window into a basin. If you live on Bitwood Street and >> CL you're not going to see it based on the landscaping. So you're not actually
looking into it >> in 10 years. You're not going to see it. Like there's obviously a growth period for >> vegetation. At the initial time of planting, those those plants will be what, five, six feet about at the time of planning based
on our landscape schedule. >> The second floor >> the second floor. Oh, you might see you might see part of the basin at at the time of construction. Yes. Um and for a few years, but the intention is for it to allow it to fully grow and then it'll be completely screened off um once it
does have that opportunity. Any other questions from the board? What is the material for the basin? Like what what's that? What does it look like? >> It's it's a 6 in sand layer. >> Okay. >> Um and then yeah, just u
basically that's all you're going to see from the top of it. It's just basically looks like the sand. One of the things I was going to suggest is maybe in between the hearings is drive through Toll Brothers and take a because I mean these million-dollar homes are built on the basins. So it's not like looking at a
basin is such a detriment. I mean some people may would rather look at a basin than a tennis court for example. >> I'm looking at a basin in my backyard. That's why this is >> but I don't know if it's the same basin. I don't know how that one's designed next to the firehouse. You're looking at
>> Ocean Park. A park at Ocean. It's the same one you've proposed, I would assume. >> Well, what is it, Julie? >> Uh, Parket Ocean. >> What street is that on? >> It's Woolly Court. There is one street. Parket Ocean.
>> I know you knew that. >> I just know how I feel looking at it. So, >> okay. So, we'll take a look at that also. And what? >> Okay. We'll take a look at it and see if it is comparable. I don't know. Is there any type of design that could maybe make
it look a little more green or a little, you know, is there some other option? In this case, we we did look at the potential for what's called a bio retention basin, but those require
uh 18 to 24 in basically biomedia surface layers and we're really restricted by the seasonal high water table. So we only have a certain distance that we can build to the bottom of that base and and the 6 inch sand layer is the most efficient uh type of struct uh system we could use here.
>> Yeah. I mean there are different ways to to um meet the requirements of the >> New Jersey stormwater management rules. Um this infiltration basin does meet the
requirements. um they've gotten more uh restrictive over the years. Uh and this is it is one of the the kind of simplest ways to to address that that >> requirement. >> All right. Any other questions from the
board for this witness? >> All right. Mr. Ko, looking at at the time, >> do you want to uh I know that we're going to come back and discuss storm water again. Do you want to call in? Do you want to bring up your traffic expert this evening? >> What time are you going to go until
>> that'll help define my answer? >> I'm looking at my board members here. >> It's 9:30 now. >> Yeah. >> So, >> we should open to the public to get public comment. Yeah, I think that might be more helpful is to get the public to get the if you allow public comment and
we can take some notes on that and see what we can do to address their comments and then when we return, you know, again, the the the the traffic testimony, Ben's office took no exception to anything in the report. It's pretty straightforward. So, I think the comments while they're going to
object to traffic because they don't want anything built here at the end of the day, it's not going to be specific to the traffic testimony. So they may be open if that might be helpful. >> Sure. So there's board amenable for that. >> Yeah. >> All right. So the members of the public now is your chance to come up and share
your feelings and thoughts, concerns, more questions. Um come on back up. Grab the microphone. Just introduce if you've already been sworn in. Mark does not need to swear you in again. Just reintroduce yourself for the record. And I and I will make clear that at the next
meeting there will be another there will be another public comment at the end of that meeting as well. >> Yes, there will be. >> Okay. Go ahead. Just restate your name, sir. >> Fiori Pandora. >> Yes. And you're still on road. >> All right. Just one question. The coldest sack is not the right dimension,
right? It's shorter than it's supposed to be. >> No, it is the right dimension. >> Only two feet. You said it's supposed to be 50 feet or so. Didn't they say that earlier? So >> the the diameter of the culde-sac, >> yes, >> is is not what the ordinance says, but the state law
>> supersedes the ordinance beats the state law. >> Okay. Cuz I'm just looking at the size of the lots, too. And I'm thinking that I don't know what they're going to build. And isn't there setbacks like >> front to back, left to right? >> Yeah. We're not asking for any varian system that we're going to >> Okay. So, if you have a lot that's only
30 ft wide, let's say, or whatever, the bottom one, if that's 40 ft, and you build a house on it, don't you need a setback and don't you need left and right? >> No, we So, Jim, I'll let you take this as a >> Okay. The setback is from the edge of
the right of way, which is actually farther from probably about six or seven feet beyond the pavement. So if it's a 30 foot front setback, it's going to be at least 36 feet from the paved surface of the road.
>> And then left and right, isn't that still >> left and right, it will be 10 ft on each side. >> 20 now. >> What? >> It changed to 20. I thought it was 25. >> 10 ft on each side. >> Well, that's 20 ft. >> That's what I said. >> I thought it was 25. >> It might be in this zone. It might be 25 ft combined.
>> My house was 25. >> So I have the zone. Did you did you keep my zoning or did you think I gave >> the height? What is the height again? >> 35 ft >> cuz mine was 26 ft. >> So it wouldn't change. >> But that's that's what the ordinance says now.
>> So when another 10 ft >> what height >> that's what it did. >> So he's may you want me to? >> So again it's minimum sideyard of 10 ft both sides 25 ft. So that's the same. So you were right with the combined
>> the building height >> is 35 ft in your zone. So I don't know why anyone would have >> I was at 26 when I did my my it changed my whole layout of my house. >> I can't speak to it. >> Your house is how old? >> Well I did it uh 17 years ago.
>> Yeah. Okay. So the ordinance the ordinance changed about >> no more. Don't go more than 26 feet. And and the ordinance is going to hopefully going to change again to reduce that 35 ft. >> Yeah. Because now they have three layers up there, three stories. >> Yes.
>> Okay. Thank you. >> Anyone else from the public? Come on up. >> You're already sworn, so just introduce yourself again for the record. >> Yes. Uh John John Stone from 11 Klein Street. Uh maybe I just will rephrase uh
some of the concern I had before. Um there is a uh storm drain that will pass uh through the property. I just asking the question then. Is there a a storm drain that's going to be passing through uh lot five then from
this new development over to Klein Street? >> Yes. >> Okay. During a rain event, will there be any water in that storm conduit? >> Yes. Well, it depends on if it's a
smaller storm event, it's intended to infiltrate and stay outside of that outlet. >> Sure. >> For the larger storm events, it drains out of that basin into that pipe that routes through lot five. >> Yes. Okay. So, it will contribute to the water in Klein Street during a rain
event. Uh if it's a substantial rain event, >> just as it does in the existing condition as well. >> Okay. Well, that's where I disagree. I don't believe that uh water from that area does contribute to >> Mr. Johnson. Let me just say this that this is not to discredit what you're
saying. I mean what you're saying is probably true. The problem is you're not an engineer, >> right? >> And and we have an engineer telling us that this isn't a problem. So I you have you have until the next meeting. I'd welcome you to get an engineer. Sure.
hire an engineer to come here and present to the board that it's a problem if you believe it's a problem. But uh I I can tell you that his opinion because he has a because he has the license supersedes your opinion unfortunately. >> I thoroughly understand so you have some
extra time if you wish to hire an expert of your own. >> And just and I just want to add on that you know Ben represents the board and he reviewed everything we submitted and didn't take exception to it. So it's not just Jeff's opinion. It was also reviewed by the board's engineer.
>> Right. Sure. And I did say before um after you spoke the first time that that I'm asking for additional uh calculations and verification that that pipe that you're talking about uh that is going to discharge into the existing
system on Klein Street is not going to negatively impact um that system. >> Okay. Sure. I just wanted to offer my 47 years of uh expert eyewitness testimony rather than an engineering uh opinion.
>> Anyone else from the public? >> No one. >> Sure. >> So, what date are we looking at? >> I was just taking zoning board. So, that's why I just said April 16th and that's not right. >> We won't be ready for this. >> I'm I was wrong though because uh so
it's April 27th, you were right for the planning board and then it's May May 18 for the PL. So it's either April 27th or May 18th. >> You have only two weeks.
>> No, I as much as my client's going to want me to do it in April, I think May 18th is more realistic. We have quite a bit of work to do in order to get ready. So, we'd ask that it be carried without any further notice. >> All right. If that's okay with the board, um I'll I'll make the announcement.
>> Is that okay with everybody else? >> Yeah, we're good. >> All right. So, so that everybody understands this application is being carried to the May 18th meeting in this room at 7 p.m. You're not going to receive any further notice. So, put in your phones now or your calendars now,
whatever device you have, uh, to be here May 18th at 700 p.m. in this room. >> Okay. This is your notice, the only notice you're going to get. >> Unless you want to watch this again at home on >> Thank you. >> All right. With that, uh, do I have a
motion to adjourn this meeting? >> Moved by Vice Chair Punis. Do I have a second? >> Second by Mr. All in favor? I. Thank you everyone.