7:30. I'd like to call the order the uh Oldbridge Township Planning Board meeting for February 26, 2026. Please rise for the >> pledge. America nation under God.
>> Danny, could we have a roll call, please? >> Mr. Dama, >> here. >> Mr. Lenning, >> here. >> Mr. Tama, >> here. >> Miss Cannon >> here. >> Mr. Mr. Ren >> here, >> Mr. Petty >> here. >> Miss Misella >> here. >> Mr. McSac >> here. >> Mr. Brennan
>> here. >> Mr. Ferrara >> here. >> And Chairman Lowry >> here. >> Yeah, Mr. Chairman, our professionals, I guess, are not here yet. So, okay. >> Hopefully, they'll be here very shortly. Well, I guess we'll swear when they get here. >> Okay. Um up for uh nomination uh and
appointments is uh engineering consultants uh CME Associates. Can I get a motion? >> Second. >> Mr. Dama. >> Yes. >> Mr. Lenn.
>> Yes. >> Mr. Tama. >> Yes. >> Miss Canon. >> Yes. >> Mr. Ren. >> Yes. >> Mr. Mr. Petty, >> yes. >> Miss Mella, >> yes. >> Mr. McGisac, >> yes. >> Mr. Brennan, >> yes. >> Mr. Ferrara, >> yes. >> Chairman Lowry, >> yes.
>> Okay. Next is uh up for discussion uh special meetings. Um first one is uh 53-2025P Walmart Real Estate Business Trust. Let's open it up for discussion.
So Danny, there's special dates or something that they're asking for. >> Yeah. Joe, do you want me to put the dates into the record or? >> Yeah, there's no issue with that. >> Yes. >> Be a public meeting. So >> yeah. So application 53 2025P uh for Walmart. They had requested
Monday March 16th, Monday March 23rd, Tuesday March 24th, Monday March 30th, and Tuesday March 31st. They are right now scheduled for the May meeting of this year. >> I know I'll speak for myself. I know I'm
not available on any of those dates. >> Anybody available on any of those dates? I'm not available >> with the uh I have childcare issues so I'm >> I have the annual meetings scheduled but additional ones are very difficult. >> Okay.
>> Anyone else >> I'm not available for any of those days either. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Motion to move it. a motion to move >> to vote on it. >> Oh well. Uh well, I think uh this
there's nothing really to vote for vote on it. It's just a matter of whether I think that what we just the chairman just did is what we needed to do was to find out if we had a quorum to that would be available any of the dates that provided. If so, then we could schedule the meeting. If there isn't a quorum for any of the dates, then we have to advise the applicant that none of those dates
were covered. >> Okay. >> Danny, can you repeat those dates? >> You want to repeat the dates? So you have Monday, March 16th, Monday, March 23rd, Tuesday, March 24th, Monday, March 30th, and Tuesday, March 31st.
>> Okay. So, how many people can make it? >> Any of those? >> Any of those. >> I may be able to make the end of the month. I'm having a knee operation on the 12th, so I'll be out of commission for a while. >> Joe, I think it might be easiest to go
one by one. Say yes or no. If yes, what dates? >> Yeah. Why don't we started to do that before? Let's just kind of get it in order for for the record. Why don't we go down, Mr. Chairman, if it's okay down the line just if any of those dates work and which dates they did work, which dates would work for you if it's I think
that's the easiest way and cleanest. >> I'm not available for any of them. I'm not available for any of the dates. >> I'm available for all of them >> at this point. I think I'm available for all. >> Not available at this time.
>> I'm only available for >> I'm not available at any time. and chairman. >> All of us. >> Yes. Yeah, we would have a quorum. >> All right. I guess uh Mr. Chairman, with your permission, we'll have Danny reach out to the applicant offer which dates
that we do have available and let them know how many people are available because depending on what relief they're seeking, they may, you know, still not want to proceed. uh you know if there's a variance relief depending on the application >> um provide that information. >> Gotcha. I'll straighten it out with the applicant.
>> Okay. Thank you. And now uh number two 49-2025P 335 Green Street LLC. >> Thank you chairman. Yes. So this is application 492025 2025P. The five dates that they're
requesting is Monday, March 16th, Monday, March 23rd, Tuesday, March 24th, Monday, April 13th, and then Tuesday, April 14th. >> Okay. The date of the scheduled,
>> the date that they are scheduled is April April 23rd. >> Do the same thing again. >> I I have a question. So, they're asking for a few days prior to the already scheduled meeting. >> Yes. >> For what reason?
>> They just gave me a couple of dates. >> Okay. >> Well, I I cannot um I don't know. I'd have to look at my work calendar. Um, I think initially when you had sent the email, Danny, I don't think I was available. I think I was away for a couple of them for work, but I'd have to
have to look back. But I would chalk it up as a no until Okay. Otherwise, >> I replied already that I wasn't available for any of those dates. >> Okay. >> I'm still out. >> Okay,
>> Miss Hannah. >> Yeah, I could do I don't So just in the March dates, >> I'm not Danny. You >> want to read all the dates? >> Duplicate those dates.
>> Okay. >> That could be available in April. That one we wouldn't have a quorum chairman. We would not. No. >> Okay. >> And just advice. I would recommend advising the applicant of that. >> You got >> Oh, yes. Mr. Uhish.
Uh just uh we skipped over swearing in the professionals because you weren't here yet. So >> my apologies, Mr. Chairman. >> Would you please? >> I also had child care issues. >> Please raise your right hand. >> You swear going to this evening's the truth, the whole truth. >> I do.
>> Thank you. >> Okay. Uh we're going to skip over to the uh uh rules board rules and regulations and go right to the resolutions. Um, so the uh first resolution is 65-2024P
Hook Mountain Associates LLC. That's being moved to March 26, 20, 2026. U the next resolution is 35-2024P Oldbridge Regency Village LLC extension
of time. >> Thank you. Good evening, Mr. chair board members and board professionals Kenneth Pap on behalf of the applicant. Last July, we came before the board and requested a minor subdivision approval to create separate tax designation for the target property that's part of the
Regency Shopping Center. And one of the more difficult rules in the land use act is that you have 190 days to perfect the subdivision. And the administrative requirements and the coordination of our engineer and our planner took a little bit longer than that. We have all of our approvals and
we're we're probably 30 to 45 days away from having our plan or having our maps ready for filing and we're respectfully requesting one extension of time and I believe that the extension of time is supposed to be a six-month extension. So, we're asking this board for six month extension so that we can perfect
that subdivision. >> Thank you. >> Uh do I have a motion to approve? >> I'll move it. >> Okay. Mr. Diploma, >> yes. >> Mr. Lenning, >> yes. >> Mr. Tama, >> yes. >> Mr. Cannon, >> Mr. Rena, >> yes.
>> Mr. Petty, >> yes. >> Mella, >> yes. >> Mr. McIac, >> yes. >> Mr. Brennan, >> yes. >> Mr. Ferrara, >> yes. >> And Chairman Lowry, >> yes. >> Thank you all. Thank you. Good evening. >> Okay. Um,
next we'll go to adoptions of the uh 2026 planning board rules and regulations. We just received it via uh the township website today. Um, I think it's a lot to absorb in such
a short time. Uh, I'd like a I'd like to move it uh to a a later date to give us time to compare the uh new changes to the old u
the old rules and regulations. Any comments? Any I mean, we we just received it today. It's it there's a lot of changes and I really think we should uh
Okay. >> So, u >> just need a motion to table. >> Yes. >> Motion to table. >> Okay. >> I'll second. >> Mr. Dama? >> Yes. >> Mr. Lenning? >> Yes. >> Mr. Tamo? >> Yes. >> Miss Canon? >> Yes.
>> Mr. Rena? >> Yes. >> Mr. Petty? >> Yes. >> Miss Mella? >> Yes. >> Mr. Mr. McGis. >> Yes. >> Mr. Brennan. >> Yes. >> Mr. Ferrara. >> Yes. >> And Chairman Lowry. >> Yes. >> Chairman, is the next March meeting. Okay. >> Uh uh the one for the 12th. >> Yes.
>> Yeah, that's fine. >> Okay. Uh next uh minutes of January 29th, 2026. Are any uh comments, deletions? Need a motion
to approve? >> I'll move it. Okay, >> I'll second. >> Mr. Dama, >> yes. >> Mr. Lenning, >> yes. >> Mr. Tammo, >> yes. >> Miss Cannon, >> yes. >> Mr. Rena, >> yes. >> Mr. Petty, >> yes. >> Miss Mella, >> yes. >> Mr. McGisac, >> yes.
>> Mr. Brennan, >> yes. >> Mr. Ferrara, >> yes. >> And Chairman Lowour, >> yes. >> Okay. Uh, applications for tonight. Uh 04-2025P 600 Jack Jack Street LLC
uh major preliminary and final site plan with a C variance is being adjourned till May 28th 26. Okay. Next application 2020 2022-2025P
Machoponic Stakes Inc. Brookside Villas preliminary major subdivision. >> Mr. Chairman, before we start that one, come on up. Um, was they did they notice for that? Is that being carried with or without notice? The prior >> that was going to be my question. Um,
they had noticed for this meeting. Um I mean I haven't received anything on a request from them and it is quite some time since the last hearing. So my request my suggestion would be that they get carried with notice. They have to pre-provide notice for that meeting. >> Okay.
>> As long as that acceptable to the board. >> Sure. >> Yeah. >> So if actually let me Mr. If I can just make a quick announcement. If anyone here is on came for that application that the 600 Jack Street LLC uh that is being carried to the May 2026, but the
applicant will have to provide new notice for that application. >> Good evening. >> Good evening. Um for the record, my name is Frank Petrino with the law firm of Seammens. We represent Machoponics
Estates Inc. Um, we have published uh uh notice and serve notice. We've submitted our affidavit and I believe the board has jurisdiction to hear this matter. >> That is correct. >> Thank you. So, the property we're going
to talk about uh is approximately five and a quarter acres, has frontage on both Colorado Boulevard and Palamino Drive. Um we're here to uh talk about a subdivision to create um
six single family lots and one open space lot. We were here two years ago. Um we got a minor subdivision. >> It's it's it's been four years, Frank. >> Four years. >> Well, time flies.
um to uh to um create this 5 acre uh parcel and one other uh and now we're back to uh subdivide the 5 acre parcel into six house lots and one open space lot. Um
four of the lots uh are proposed to have access off of Colorado. two have direct access access off Palamino. Um we have um um received three review memos. One from
Mr. Lavell uh from conservation and shade tree uh one from Matthew Bond who I believe is the fire marshal and one from your engineer. Uh
those are the only uh review memos that we've received and I don't think there are any others at least uh okay in terms of uh uh other approvals that we've already obtained. We have
obtained from D general wetlands permits a six and a 6A and those permits also carry with them uh the verification of the location of onsite uh wetlands. Um
we have one uh witness our engineer Share Ali. I think you're very familiar with him. He's been before this board several times. Um he'll present testimony regarding the existing condition of the premises. Uh the uh
proposed the scope of the proposed development which I've outlined. It's not a large application in a sense of the number of houses being number of lots being created. and he'll also go through the
township professionals um memos. Some of the memos had comments that require testimony. He'll go through those and he'll also provide a list as he goes through of the will comply
items. We we have mostly will comply items, but um we'll go through that. There are two representatives of Machoponics here tonight, Alex Halpern and uh Rob Galbard. They're available. If there are any questions that uh Share
can't answer, uh they're available, but I wouldn't assume that uh we would have questions for them. So, um again, my first and only witness is Sharif Ali. >> Mr. Ali, would you please uh raise your
right hand? Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're going to give this evening? It's the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. >> How you do? Thank you. >> Thank you, >> Sheree. Quickly, by whom are you employed, and in what capacity? >> Amech engineering and uh I'm the president engineer.
>> And um Sharie, what's your educational background licenses do you hold in New Jersey? >> Oh, thank you. >> So, I I still I still have my license in good conditions. uh good understanding. Um
graduated from NGIT back in 85 89 received my license and since then I've been practicing um land use uh engineering and been before your board
and numerous times as well as uh board throughout the state of New Jersey. >> All right, Mr. Chairman, we offer uh >> you're accepted. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> All right. Uh just a couple of preliminary questions. Uh Sharief, did you prepare or supervise the preparation
of the preliminary uh subdivision plan uh last revised July 28, 2026? >> Yes. >> Okay. Did you prepare or supervise the preparation of the storm order narrative
uh volumes 1 through three u dated September 20, 2024? Yes. >> Did you prepare or supervise the preparation of the operation and maintenance manual for Brookside Villages uh villas, I'm sorry, dated
September 20, 2024? >> Yes. >> Did you prepare or supervise the preparation of the boundary and topographical survey dated August 6, 2025? >> Supervised. Yes,
>> correct. Did you prepare or supervise the tree removal replacement plan dated August 4, 2025? >> Yes. >> Did you prepare the environmental impact statement uh last revised
uh at the time of submission of the application uh February 25, 2026? >> Yes. >> I think we've we're going to hear about a revision to that as well. Okay. And did you prepare or supervise the
community impact statement prepared uh and dated uh July 16, 220 uh to 2025? >> Yes. >> Okay. Now, question of a couple of preliminary questions. Can you do we want to hand out the um
plants so the board can see >> the color? >> Yeah. >> Yeah, I will do that. >> I'll do it. >> No, I have enough. >> Oh, you have enough? Yeah. Give this year. I got a ton. >> Oh, >> I got 15. >> While those are being passed out, do you
mind just identifying what u the exhibit? And I guess we'll be marking this as exhibit A1. >> A1 redee uh could you please identify Yeah. So, A1 is um a Brookside villas
color rendering uh pretty much of the uh landscaping plan that we have within the set. And does that plan identify the six slots, the one open space lot slot and um other detail?
>> Yes. >> Okay. Um so please describe for the board the uh existing conditions of the 5 acre parcel. Uh
so you heard that uh we have 5.3 more or less of an acres uh in the R20 zone. The R20 zone is the 20,000 square feet lot area zone. Um
so we uh and you also heard that we are uh uh the site is identified as lot 29.11 in block 24303 and that shows on the township tax map
sheet number 24.15. Uh so with that said uh the subject site was before you uh four years ago back in 21 for um what we call a minor and
consolidation lots. There were a bunch of lots there and lot 29 um 2911 was created or was born out of that subdivision and that was your board. Um
so um the the lot uh located pretty much and surrounded by Rocky Creek subdivision. Uh that's a subdivision that took place and I believe is fully developed now. uh maybe with the exception of one or two lots.
Um so I would say back uh in the mid uh 2000. Um and we shoved uh this lot is shoved pretty much in the northeastern quadrant of the
intersection of Colorado and Palamino. Um so if you add there you'll see it's from the street appears to be wooded but if you go behind the woods it's pretty much open area there. So we are the site
is partially wooded. The wooded area you see from the street which you used to be uh designated as lot one. And if you recall back in when we did the uh created the minor subdivision, lot one was owned by the
township and was given back uh to this subdivision to also to be maintained as uh open space as it used to be and at that time it was 1.4 acres. Within lot one you have an isolated
wetlands with a 50 foot buffer. 99% of the wetlands is located on lot one. And back then lot one had non-critical area of 28%. Which is way
below what's their ordinance required. So we our proposal uh the site as I said you know it's wooded as you see from the street contain a piece of wetlands that was already um uh confirmed by the state
of New Jersey wetland section. The rest of the site is pretty much open area. There is a trailer on site. I believe uh the boys from JCPNL they use that trailer. Um there's an overhang
wire with that and a utility pole and a driveway. Uh so that's what's out there right now. Our proposal is that to remove the overhead wire, the utility pole on site, demo the shed in the back of the site as
well as remove the the trailer. um and proposing seven lots. The seven lots will be six residential lots meeting the R20 zone.
We in full compliance with the R20 zone. We have we're not seeking any variances on the lots or design waiverss. Fully complies. The one lot uh remaining will be that's
about 1.9 acre that will be open space will contain the wetlands on site as well as the majority of the wooded area and um onsite uh a storm water
basin. So that's pretty much the existing condition and that's what we are proposing. The there is sewer and water, electric, gas, everything under the sun out there.
Access to the four lots will be provided by a culdeac roadway type uh that ride of way and the culdeac itself. It meets the residential site improvement standards. So we're not
asking for any waiverss from residential site improvement standards. So that's the standards out there. Um so four lots um pretty much on one side and that's the reason we are proposing
one side uh sidewalk the other two lots as well as the detention basin and to access well let's not call it detention bas stormwater facility and to access the stormwater facility will be of uh Palamino
uh so two lots will have frontage on palino ina as well as the stormwater facility and four lots will be on the future culde-sac public rideway will be given to the town as a public uh roadway
and will contain uh the four lots with the driveways again we are meeting the residential site improvement standards with respect to the driveways the roadway the culdeac the number of
parking cases that is required for each residential home. Part of the improvements that we also proposing as part of the six slots residential subdivision here is a storm
water facility. The storm water facility contains a few inlets that capturing most of the uh runoff from the future culde-sac taken it to
underground treatment uh facility treatment device to meet the water quality and the state of New Jersey uh storm water regulations. the site is not rechargeable as well as you probably heard about that so many
times any subdivision comes in the area in this particular area whether it's Rocky Creek or bunch of the old uh residential home there uh Wood Haven you will hear that that area is not rechargeable.
So with that we we do we do not need to uh address the um recharge requirement. The stormwater facility is meeting the state of New Jersey PNP manual best
water management practice as well as a green infrastructure with respect to water quality as as well as the um uh the uh reduction storm what we call it the quantity storms the two the 10
and 100. The end result is that the beak runoff comes from the site for the two-year storms is less than 50% what occurring out there. Um so with that also we have
uh we're going to do some tree clearing. I've been in communication with Mr. Lvalo. We're going to have once he comes back we'll have a site visit. We will locate every tree on site as well as a
specimen and we says plusing will be again a tree removal from his office. We also in communication is a fire department. We provided them with a turnaround auto turner, the largest fire
truck you have in town and uh also a fire lane along the culdeac that has been taken care of and it's been plused by the gentleman. Um what else did I miss?
I think I pretty much covered everything. We also have a small sign that we'd like to have for just like any residential uh community. Our sign will be um called uh Brookside Villas and we would like to
have that uh at the intersection of Palamino and uh Colorado. That's a small sign 20 square feet, six feet high. It meets all the ordinance requirement. So, we're really not seeking any design
exceptions or design waiverss. Um, >> sure. Yeah. So, um I've been told that the sign will be at well Brookside the um the future three name that we have on
the plans. We heard that we already have Brookside in town. So, we'll be be reaching out to you guys and changing that. >> Okay. >> So, uh the signs will be at the future uh Culac intersection.
>> Couple questions. Um, one of the, uh, requirements or comments in the, um, memo from the fire marshal.
Um, was that you revised the fire truck circulation plan and have you done that and submitted it to him? Yeah, as I stated before, we um already been in communication, email
communications and we uh Mr. Yeah, Mr. Matthew Bond. Yeah, Mr. Bond. So, we already provided him uh by
email the uh he gave us the largest vehicle and we uh demonstrate that it makes a turn on the culde-sac and he was happy with that. >> Is this the plan that you submitted to him? >> Yes.
Mr. Pat, >> you just identify for the record. >> I don't think you have this um that was produced uh a few days ago for Mr. Bond. How is that plan different than your
original submission? >> Uh it's well it's the same design of the roadways. We just demonstrate that the truck would make the turn. >> So you put the template on and it uh complies. >> Yes.
Now um we were also asked to provide a revised uh environmental environmental impact statement and that was done as well and submitted to um >> Mr. Lavalo.
>> Yes, Mr. Lavalo. So that's been submitted but we uh have not gotten a comment from him on that. Yeah, I believe he's away. And uh when he gets back uh we'll have a field visit and uh
we'll go over the tree specimen uh the count and as of uh that was today at 8:00 in the morning, we sent in the revised EIS to
meet his uh requirement. and I'm pretty sure that we'll uh we'll get his blessing on that. >> Are there any other comments either from the fire marshal or uh from the environmental official that we're not
able to comply with? >> Uh not at all. We'll comply with all the uh the recommendations. Yes. >> Okay. So, let's go to um let's go to the uh ERRI planning and
engineering memo. There are issues in there that um it was suggested testimony might be required. Uh I know on most of those on many of the comments if not most of the comments uh your response is
going to be will comply but um can we go through that memo quickly uh for the members of the board? So um Mr. Chairman um I'll leave it up to you. I can go um
through the whole entire memo or just pick on the one that we would like to discuss. The rest of them will be will comply. >> I'll let that Mr. >> I mean I think the most efficient would be to just the the comments that are
giving you some heartburn. Let's let's discuss those. >> No heartburn. >> No heartburn. That's what I love to hear, Frank. All right. So, um, first comment is for on page three. I don't
know if the board members have the, uh, report available to them stated, uh, February 19th or February 20th. Uh, yes. So the first uh the first
comment is on page 304 uh within the uh bulk uh requirement. Uh the uh you'll see one of the uh bulk requirement has been flagged as a variance that is for lot
29.11. That's the open space lot. And you heard my testimony that 29.11 uh that was um 29 here's a confusion 29.11 is a tax map
large lot 20 the future lot open space is also be will be called 29.11 and all the lot numbers being confirmed by the tax assessor. So that's one of the items in So the future 29.11
the open space lot slot as I mentioned before uh that was uh a bunch of was created from the minor and was c generally from the original lot one that was an open space lot the non-critical
area as I stated before and that lot one originally was 28% we improved that We took it up to 43%. But the ordinance and I I I believe the
spirit of the ordinance is that it's talking about residential lots that they have to have the minimum uh the minimum non-critical areas. So if you have a house, you have a driveway, you have a swimming pool and you have the backyard
activities, you have to have you have to make sure that that particular lot that you are creating has 65% of non-critical areas. Non-critical areas meaning flood hazard, wetlands, buffers to go along
with that. Uh could be steep slopes, specimen trees. So that's a non-critical area. But that particular lot is an open space lot. It was born as a open space lot back when Rocket Creek created that
lot. We added we improved that situation of the non-critical area from 28% to 43%. So with that said, that's our testimony as far as if it's a variance. Yes, we will be
taking that. We would like to ask for a variance but just keep in mind it's not a residential law. >> I mean the spirit of the ordinance is for residential lots. >> Two comments from my point of view. One I don't think we need a variance because
it's not a it's not a lot to be improved with a residence and secondly uh it's an existing condition. uh we're not going out there and removing material and somehow now not hitting the
65%. So um in the um planning and engineering memo from ERRI, it says well you need a C1 or a C2. If we needed a variance, it would be a C1 and it would
be because of the existing condition and it really doesn't require any planning testimony. It requires just a a recognition and an understanding that it uh is an existing condition. I I would
tend to agree with Mr. uh Ali and with uh Mr. Patrino on on that the the non-curricular area the intent of that uh requirement uh is really if if we're creating a residential lot to make sure that uh the
property owner isn't burdened with a non-usable area and there is enough room for for actual you know use. Um and further the the area that we're talking about was the open space lot uh from
uh it was called Matchonics Estates actually on the final plat I believe. Uh so that was the open space lot that was that was there uh that was to be conveyed to the township. but never was actually conveyed to the township and then that was combined with this property as part of that minor
subdivision which was actually what was directed in the resolution of approval for uh Mataponics estates. So basically we took this piece which had a lot of or a large percentage of non-critical area made made it part of uh combined it with
a uh a couple of parcels that then reduce the non I'm sorry to increase the non-critical area percentage and now we're going back to again creating this lot which will have a large non-critical percentage. At the end of the day it's it's sort of a shell game of of sliding
sliding the land around. uh there's no change being made to the actual non-critical area. So I would tend to agree that it is it is a C1 uh and and in this case it would really be more of an acknowledgement that there's no detriment uh that's that's actually u
created by the grant of that relief. >> How's that? >> Yeah, Mr. Chairman, I I agree as well on a legal basis. I think it's important that the board does act favorably on the application does grant it as a variance because while it may not be the intent and I agree with everything that was uh
stated on both sides of the table uh but um it is there is no differentiation in the ordinance itself. So is it really more of a technical variance that would be granted as part of this application? >> Yeah, I agree. It is a variance. The one thing we'll disagree on I think it is a
variance. So yeah, I agree with Joe. Um Shere we're up to page four. >> So uh B for um under waiverss
um number six as I stated before we meet the standards we meet the residential site improvement stand they are the gospel. So um I think the waiver will be from new ordinance. Yes. Not from the
standards. Uh number seven. >> Well, let me just stop you. The but the the ordinance is superseded by RSI. >> I I agree. But in the it's been the board's practice that they would that they would have to actually entertain
the waiverss. So >> because it is in our ordinance, it is a requirement in our design design standards. Um but it is superseded by the RSIS. We wouldn't change our ordinance only because there are applications that come through that are not subject to RSIs, right? So, so for
that reason, we we have it in our ordinance and it is a waiver and your justification for the waiver is a good justification. There's a superseding uh regulation that says no, this is what it should be. So, I agree with you of the two waiverss and the same reasoning applies to six and seven. Mr. Chairman,
number eight isn't addressed by RSIs. My preference would be to go with a larger radius at the intersection to be consistent with the rest of the development because I believe the rest of the development has at least 20 foot radi at the at the corners there. >> Yeah. Uh I I think you meant to say number seven.
>> I I was I'm sorry. I meant number seven. I apologize. Number six and eight are um per RSIs. Number seven is the radi at the uh at the intersection where the applicants proposing 15 ft. Our ordinance requires 20 feet and the existing uh development in the
neighborhood I believe might be 20 or 25. We want to be consistent with the rest of the development is is the idea. >> Does exhibit uh A2 uh satisfy uh the board's uh engineer? >> Um like A2 is is great but but again we
want to be consistent with the rest of the development. >> Yes. So we'll uh we'll comply with that. >> Yeah. >> Did you increase the radi when you did A2? Is that what you did? Okay. Yeah. I apologize, Frank. I didn't realize that's what you were getting at. >> So, number Yeah. Number seven will will go to as you recommended to any fee.
>> Okay. Perfect. Thank you. >> So, in number nine, Sheree, do we have uh two items to talk about? DNA. >> Uh number nine, we always get in trouble on >> I think number nine is we'll work it out. >> Number nine. Yeah. >> If the board acts favorably, the
lighting has to be consistent with the rest of the neighborhood. Yes. And we'll and we'll work that out. Yeah. So, um do you just uh for the record um is that okay if I continue on? >> Oh, yeah. Please. I just >> So, for the record, um uh uh number nine
is it's mainly for residential areas that uh like Wood Haven out there where you have condominions, you have uh apartments, you have town homes, and you have common parking lots. So, was was meant for that. Uh what we have here is
a public future public uh right ofway and if you read number nine if you go down to DNE it talks about uh illumination of residential areas which is kind of like gives you like what are we going to do the front yard and the side yard and the backyard we're not
obviously doing that. So that's the reason we asking for a relief from that but it's in the ordinance. >> Yeah. My recommendation again should the board act favorably on the application uh would be to grant relief from the lighting standards to the extent that
they can't comply but to the satisfaction of our our office and to the miss Shapiro's office. >> Uh number 10 on the same page we are uh we are confirming that the uh the garage will be a minimum of 18 ft deep.
Typically a garage is 22 but we are saying we will comply. Um so for that uh uh and then on page um page five
>> well let me stop you for a second. Is 11 will comply on page four? >> Uh 11 that's um >> and you've already done it in the EIS. >> Yes. and we already put the testimony on that that we are already in
communication with Mr. Lavalo. >> Yeah. I I I think what we were asking is is confirmation um because what what what you have is a 50ft x 50t sample area and what we're asking is for confirmation that the vegetation is consistent throughout the throughout the
site because a sample area is great if the vegetation is consistent but if you have areas that are that are disparit then you would need multiple sample areas. So what I'm asking is is the vegetation that's in the 50t x 50 foot sample area representative of the entire site.
>> Yes. Okay. I think the >> Frank, you want me to keep going? >> Yeah. In the environmental impact state, they revised January 25. It >> Okay. >> It confirms that. >> Perfect. >> Um Yeah.
>> Keep going. >> Keep going. just indicate uh will comply and then it 12A will comply. >> Yeah. So I'm as I'm skipping uh meaning that we will comply. Uh number 13 will um it talks about the uh that a
testimony to um uh as far as the solid waste. This is a residential uh community and uh curb pickup and a private hauler. Uh that's our testimony on that. number 13 on page five.
>> Thank you. >> So your your testimony is that it's going to be private hauler, not >> Yes. Okay. >> Uh number uh 14. Um I I think we touched
base on that. Number 14. So number 14 uh talks about the sign >> and I label the exhibit as it's a color exhibit. Um, and I label that as um A3. >> What What's in the title block? What is
it called? >> Uh, a signage plan uh Brookside Villa signage plan. And it shows a very simple sign uh to be at the future intersection of uh the the future roadway there uh as
is shown on the plan as Brookside Drive. And we we talked about we will change the name. Uh and it shows the location of the sign and also shows the sign meets the ordinance requirement. 20 square ft 6 ft high and um we'll have a
couple lights on the ground uh aiming to the uh to the to the sign. sign is not illuminated and just two lights at the bottom uh in the ground. >> Ground mounted signs.
>> Yeah, ground mounted. Yes. So, that's our sign. Um and that's our testimony on that. >> Okay. So, we're passing down to or we're moving down to uh 17 on page six.
>> 17 uh I think it's just a a a confusion there. Um >> right we're only seeking preliminary approval. >> Right. We were asked to provide uh a final plat. So the confusion there is that because we here for preliminary or
of our plans called preliminary major subdivision. But because it's a final plat and we asked to provide it. So it it says on a final plat. So I'm just clarifying that. >> So it's you're you're only seeking preliminary approval this evening. >> Correct. Seeking. Yeah.
>> All right. That's that's what our notice uh indicated. >> Yeah, your application said and everything. I we the confusion was that since there was a final plat provided, I just wanted to make sure. >> Right. >> Well, well, we did review the final plat. So, you have comments for when you do come in for final. That should be a really quick evening.
>> We'll definitely take care of it. >> Um, >> so 18 through 22 or will comply? >> Yes. 23. My office received from the uh uh tax assessor u the lot numbers that
were using on the uh subdivision plan 24 through 48 >> 48 or we'll comply. So number 49, um
it's recommended that the sidewalk to be on both sides. Uh we have it on one side and as I said before in my testimony that the four lots shove to one side of the road, the other side of the road is
environmentally sensitive area. And the permit that we the permit that we obtained from the state for uh wetlands disturbance uh one of the condition in the permit is that you have we have to
do the minimum to disturb wetlands and associated buffers. So the minimum meaning if you're looking for a roadway and a curb to get the cars in and out that's great. That's all you're going to get. But um
unfortunately uh we have a sidewalk on one side, but that serves the purpose. It's a short culde-sac. It's only about 200 ft and uh all the residential lots on one side
>> and that's what we have on the plan. My my my only comment on that is if you look at an aerial view of of the of the rest of the because really you're going to have your own sign, which I kind of question why you would need a sign for for this little development when you you're you're in the center of existing
development, which I guess I'll let the board discuss that. I don't think a sign's necessary, but let's go back to talking about the sidewalk. Um the rest of the neighborhood has sidewalks on both sides of the road. Majority of the roads there. There's one road I think Colorado might have might not have it
because of the way the development laid out, but the rest of the development does have a sidewalk on both sides of the road. I think it's really important, especially given the fact that you you might have on tree parking. Uh so if someone's parking there, they're going to want a sidewalk to get to where they need to go. The fact that you already applied for a permit before you came to
this board for approval, it's not not that, you know, I'll let somebody else say it's not our problem, but it's not our problem. >> I'll say it's not my problem. >> So, let me just Uhhuh. >> Yes.
>> I'm sorry. It's in front of every lot. There's only a 100 ft missing and then there'll be a crosswalk. >> I I wouldn't want a crosswalk where that where that sidewalk is ending in the middle of the road like that. We would we wouldn't want a crosswalk 100 feet
off of the road like that. Um so if there is one proposed which and let me see I I don't see it there's no cross bucket it looks like there but um I mean my preference again would be to be consistent with the rest of the neighborhood. We don't want this to be
different than the rest of the neighborhood. We if if this is going to be approved we want it to be consistent with the rest of this area. Right. So we would want sidewalks on both sides of the road. At least I would recommend. It's up to the board. They're the ones that decide. >> Okay.
Um, so sidewalk um you you I'm I'm assuming you're making a reference to a concrete sidewalk. Yes. Not just we can >> we can address the area with mulch is only 100 ft.
>> Mulch isn't a sidewalk. >> It's a pathway. I mean you can a sidewalk. We need >> Let's So it's not a sidewalk. It's mulch. So, it's either going to be a concrete sidewalk. Don't Let's not conflate that something can be a
sidewalk. Grass could be a sidewalk, too. I could walk on grass. So, it's a sidewalk. >> Gotcha. >> So, um the 100 ft segment if the sidewalk was
if the crosswalk was moved. I mean, again, it's it's every lot has sidewalk in front of it. the crosswalk isn't the the issue. It's it's you first you can't have a crosswalk 100 feet off of Colorado. That that's actually a hazard
for pedestrians. So, we wouldn't want that. Um we want it to be cons. Again, when I say we, I'm using the royal we. I I would recommend that it be consistent with the rest of the development. That's that's basically my my point. So you're
asking that because there's several wetlands permits be modified. >> If if you can fit it within the existing disturb area, great. If not, then yeah, you would have to modify the wetland permit. At least that's what my recommendation would be. Again, >> because you have sidewalk along Colorado
as as those folks are coming up, you know, again, it it makes sense that that you would continue the sidewalk. I'm surprised that it wasn't done that way. Uh share I think we're that was 49. We have 50A but is will comply 50B. You
wanted to >> uh mention something 50. >> Oh the street names we we we talked about that. >> Okay we'll um >> we'll change the name.
>> All right. In 51 the only um the uh we do will have the permit. Yeah, we you you guys just provided that testimony, right? Right. Yeah. >> And the permit does delineate the wetlands. So that that satisfies 51 >> 52
page uh 8 or 14 uh talks about homeowner association the deeds. Yes, we'll we'll provide. >> Will that be a condition of preliminary or final? >> I mean assuming we got preliminary.
I mean typically those are usually conditions versus I wouldn't have it legally I wouldn't have an issue. >> Yeah. If if this if the board acts favorably on on this application we would expect those to be submitted as condition of of prior to signature final
plats basically. >> Thank you. >> Could we also get clarification on what the HOA would be responsible for? Well, it has to um let me look at the plan. It has to maintain the open space lot. It
has to maintain the basin. Um if there are any are there any offsite improvements? >> No, >> nothing in the All right. So, it's basically the open space lot in the basin. The u the road is we're proposing
the road as public. >> So, the HOA would not be responsible for that. If I may, um, that's actually what that's me over here. Uh, it's that's actually one of the things that we were asking with that comment, Mr. Lennig, the just some clarification on what the
HOA m would be responsible for, particularly there's extensive drainage in these properties as far as there's in the within the rear yards, within the sideyards, there's pipes, there's inlets, there's strange manholes. Mr. Laney doesn't want any of that. So
public works >> the H the HOA wants that is is basically what we're getting at. >> So um and we can draft it so they have we have the ability to go on >> right >> individual lots and maintain all components of the stormwater management
system and that's that's the way it would be drafted. >> That's perfect. That that's exactly what what I I was getting at. And then the other uh and this is language I think we'll have to work out should we get to that point uh with regard to fences and and and things like that
within these easements. Uh >> yes, >> as a municipal engineer for for a few towns, one of my bigger headaches is arguing with with a guy who just paid a million dollars for a house and telling him he can't put a fence in >> or girl, mostly guys, though. Uh so that's one of the things that we're
going to need to discuss is is exactly, you know, what's going to be allowed on the easements uh and and and and things of that nature. But that's something we can probably do at final. >> Yeah, you can we can work out the scope of all of the items that the HOA we need to know that because we have to prepare a budget. >> Yes.
>> So we need to know all those items. >> Y >> I'm sorry. 53 were will comply 54 C. I think you wanted to talk about that.
>> I think we already started talking about that. >> Okay. >> Um talking about the fence and uh a recommendation to um what's allowed in the um within the easement. That particular
fence is related to the u uh storm water facility. Um what we proposing see through fence with landscaping massive landscaping in front of the fence between the fence uh and the
between the fence and the uh um 4t deep uh block wall in the stom facility. Um so the condition there to just Oh. So the the area I believe that we are
talking about is lot 2915 and 2916. So the storm water facility is taking sharing a common property line with 29 future 2916 and common property line with future 2915. So as we stated the the whole entire
storm water facility will be maintained by homeowner association as well as the access to get into it. Uh the basin is delineated with 4 foot high a wall which is pretty much standard landscaping wall. It's not that more
than 4 ft high. Um because if it's more than 4 ft high then we call a structure wall. But this is a landscaping wall. typical walls that you see out there. The fence is recommended because you have the drop off of in the basin area.
So, the fence is 4 ft. We're recommending shown on the plan four 4T high um easy to uh to get in and out or a resident or someone in the area to can see through the fence. They have someone
down there for a safety purpose. So that's a reason that sees see through four feet high and to give also some security and to address uh the area around this uh the uh storm facility is
that we have quite a bit of of uh landscaping over green landscaping to hide the fence and also hide the storm water facility just like a typical any subdivision that you have in
So, um the so that's as that's what we have on the plan and I believe uh the uh recommendation is I don't think there it is recommended
the proposed fins to be provided as non-scalable fins. >> Yeah. Typically for for drainage basins what we would prefer is a split rail fence whether it's PVC or you know probably it's HOA is going to maintain it. I would I would want PVC just
because it of longevity PVC split rail fence with a um a mesh uh with a small mesh so it prevents it from being climbed. >> Right. So take the recommendation and we will
comply. Um number 58. Um >> so 55 5657 will comply. >> Yeah, we're skipping meaning complying. Um number 58 it talks about uh condition
of Okay. So what has taken back lot one. So we took the whole entire frontage of uh along Colorado and Palamino. So with that said, any sidewalks
or traffic devices along that entire frontage um will address whether it's broken or splitting or we'll take care of that. So we are in agreement with that. >> Are those sidewalks on our lot or in the rightway?
>> Within the right of way. They're in the They're in the right of way. >> All right. So, you want us to do that work in the right of way, >> correct? >> Okay. >> They're all in good shape. Even with the snow cover out there, I see much associate the >> I haven't been out there in a while, but but
>> based off it's been a while. Yeah. So, it's but based off the street view, it seems like it's in pretty good shape. But that that is a a requirement that we have on on most developments. >> Right. So, you ask us to put a testimony on it. We
uh we're good with that. Uh we already talked about item 59 on the same page, page eight, the overhead wiring. I said that that will be removed. Um >> 6 61 or will approve. I mean, uh we'll
comply. >> Yeah. And and 60, just to clarify, there's a typographic error. It says parking is prohibited on both sides. It's actually parking is prohibited on one side because of the 28 foot width. Correct. >> Item 60.
>> Item 60. Yes. >> So, we're up to 62. Uh >> yes, we almost gentlemen, you know, uh the I I think I already covered 622. It's uh
uh it's talking about probably an existing uh stop sign on the bar >> that was covered the same same testimony from 59 >> from 59. >> So 63 through 66 or will comply
that we're on page nine. So page nine um uh we were asked to put a testimony on um uh one of the easement uh where is a manhole actually we'll we'll combine 67
68 pretty much the same uh so we'll work with your office um with your uh engineering uh office and uh we'll shift the line to make sure that a minimum of
uh right now we have 10 ft. We'll make sure that minimum of 15 ft away from the uh basement wall. >> Okay. >> Or better. So we'll comply with that. >> All right. 69 through 76 we were on page
10 are will comply. >> 77 we already talked about. That's we met the D standards. We we we had to go through stormwater review to get the wetlands permit. redeem. Did you already cover A, B, C,
and D? I think you did in uh 77. >> Uh yes, we will comply. >> We already uh >> we already our our storm water management system met the EP standards. >> So yes, one thing that it doesn't comply
with is the future storms. We didn't see any calculations for the future storms and you do have to comply with that. So that's that's something that we'll we'll need. Yes. Uh so my apology on that we already um the uh the storm water report
keeps on getting bigger and bigger and and it's like by the time you just go halfway you'll be >> you can charge more to prepare those kind of reports. What are you talking about? >> So uh what we do as a consulting now is that right now we have like volume
three. It's like very very thick report. Uh so the uh the uh what we send your office is the future. >> So you have the future storms. >> We have we have current that we shared with the state. So I will share that with >> you share you share both the future and
the current >> and and we meet all our requirements. Okay. So um >> we did submit a revised that was the EIS. I'm sorry. >> Yeah. If if it was in there I didn't see the feature storms in the report.
>> Yeah. That's actually I I actually checked that personally. >> Yeah. So, we have that. That's not a problem. >> So, 78 through 82 is will comply. >> Yes.
>> And then we're on page 11 uh item um 83. But isn't that the same that that was reviewed and approved by D? >> Uh no, you meant say 82, right? >> No, 83. 82 you said will comply.
>> So on my markup is 82. Uh so 83 will comply. That's not a problem. Um the Oh change it on you. >> Um >> yeah 82. What we we would like to get a
a relief from is that and I can put the testimony on that is the uh was asking of us is to since we discharging to an existing inlets on Colorado um we uh we were asked to analyze the
system downstream. Can you handle the capacity coming from the site? And in my testimony I indicated that the rate uh peak for the two 10 and 100 is been
reduced for the two years reduced by 50% for the 10 years reduced by 25% for 100 year reduced by 20%. Meaning that what was going there in the pipes out in the street the flow has been reduced. So, what I'm asking for is
um a relief from going through the analysis because we already put the analysis in a report with a decrease. >> So, so your testimony is is the is the analysis that that we kind of need. So, I need that in the stormwater report. The stormwater report didn't have the
the the drainage area maps that we we normally look for. So if you could provide the drainage area maps and a narrative that says here's how much water is going to this pipe segment in the existing condition and here's how much water is going to that pipe segment in the proposed condition then that
that's the analysis that that we're looking at. So your your testimony and the required maps put in writing oh your testimony put in writing and the required maps are are really what we're looking for. >> Right. Uh I I I guess the reason uh uh I want to talk about because I don't
want to keep on going for miles. >> I'm with you know we're not looking for a analysis of >> Yeah. >> this this part of Old Bridge. We're looking to make sure >> that the system that's in >> uh Palamino and the system that's in Colorado. >> Absolutely. >> Uh can sufficiently handle the runoff. >> Yes.
>> Or really the change in runoff from your site. >> Sure. We could do that. Um >> so that was was that 83 shar 83 84 is about the operation maintenance manual which most of that's what's you know required require
>> 84 through 93 or will comply? >> Yes. >> So now 90 we are now on page 12 of the report. All right. Um, so 94 is more of a
attorney uh explanation, but uh I think it's um n4 page 12. It talks about the street lights and I think that's more of a condition of
the final uh if the approval board include the condition of approval for installation of a street light on dedicated public street and it goes on and on at 50% of the dwellings 50% of the floor area ratio yeah I guess we will be complying with
that but that that becomes part of the final >> that that's also the township standard for for accepting street lights. So >> yeah. >> So do you agree that's a condition of final? >> Yeah, we can we can deal with that at final, but just so you know that's
that's basically what we do, >> right? Um number 95 uh I think that is given. Uh we will comply with that. Developer shall provide for installation of all
underground service uh for street lights at his cost. >> Any objection? >> 96 is will comply. Do you need to discuss 97 and 98? Um that's a very interesting one. So
will the question there is that uh while we doing the construction on the uh two lots uh with frontage on Palomino which is 2916 and 2917
even with the uh the basin. So the construction uh entrance is going to be from the future roadway. Um and then from there clearing earth work uh storm
uh putting the basin uh rough grading that will be coming from inside. So at that time, yes, we'll put a fence all along the uh all along Palamino that will
allow people to travel or to walk on the sidewalk there. The only time that they would not be able uh to do that is that when we uh basically uh doing the work within from the existing curb to the
right of way. uh in this case we have two driveways that we need to punch through. So we'll be doing some work in that area. So we are talking about temporary uh disconnect of the sidewalk at that time for a small period of time.
>> So 98 is no it won't be built in stages. Correct. >> No we only six lots. 99. That looks like something's done at final. >> 99 is okay. >> Yeah.
>> Yes, that's a final. >> Yeah, that's actually at at time of construction. We want the limits staked out. >> Now we're up. We're on. Yeah. Well, he wrote it. I can't. >> Uh
13. >> Um >> um and number 100. Do you have something you want to add to that >> or have you already testified to that? That's temporary identification sign detail.
>> So, it's a temporary identification sign. So, so basically we're talking about this. Is that this detail? >> That's permanent sign. >> This is a permanent sign. I don't think we know. >> Can we talk about why you need a permanent sign? >> It's ground mounted.
>> No, I didn't ask what kind of sign it was. I'm asking why you need it. and the rest of the develop. Yeah, I mean it's a six lot. >> I mean, listen, it's up to the board. I'm just asking. It seems kind of unnecessary unless the board really wants one.
>> Well, my client says he doesn't need it. If the board wants it, we'll uh that's what we'll do. >> Whatever. Okay. You know what I'm saying?
Now we're on page 13, 101 to 110. I don't see any comments. Uh any issues with traffic? I don't think so. >> No, >> no, no. The >> It's really more a statement of
>> right. And the administrative that are 108 to 110, they're all I assume future, >> correct? >> Or final. Yes. And Mr. Chairman, that's the end of our presentation. >> Well, thank you.
>> I'm glad you only had one witness. >> Okay. Um, well, let's go to our professional first. >> If you have any >> I'm I'm really for the first time in a while, I'm sort of done. Uh, we haven't really gone through one of my letters in a point by-point fashion in a
while. I do appreciate it. Um, I don't have any any specific questions for this applicant. I think we went through my memo and they've provided the testimony um that we've requested and agreed to uh compliance with just about all the comments in our memo. I'm happy to
answer any questions that any board member may have though. >> I have some questions. So, for the going back to your memo number nine, which is the the lighting. >> Yes. So, and and maybe this is for the
the witness as well. So, obviously I understand that the lighting that's within somebody's ordinance are public areas, parking lots and and whatnot, but will the proposed lighting match what the current lighting is in that neighborhood?
>> Absolutely. Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. Are you finished? >> I I'm finished. I think I said I'm I'm I'm here all night. If anybody has any questions. >> Dan, do you have any >> I only had one comment relative to the
position of the sign? Yes, sir. >> And if it obstructed the view uh when you come to the corner, >> I think it's outside the sign's gone. >> It's an invisible sign. >> Now it's invisible. >> All signs are gone.
>> Signs. >> Okay. the uh questions on the left. >> Uh yeah, with the um the sidewalk, is that going to be taken care of with the DP? Cuz the painted on the street stop
sign, that will all change with the new sidewalk going down there. There'll be a crosswalk there now instead of the crosswalk you proposed way up the block. That has to be uh some kind of stipul stipulation for
approval, you know, and that's probably a big uh a big um to do having the D approve. Now, you got to put a sidewalk there. >> Um >> for safety of the residents and the
existing residents, if anybody wants to walk up that one side, >> we have to. There has to be a sidewalk and a crosswalk like a normal street. >> Um, we'll talk to our environmental consultant um, Mike Francis who got the permit for
us. Um, if there if we can put a sidewalk if there's any way that that we can do it that doesn't require D or we'll have to go back to D. But I think the issuance of that permit should be a condition of final, not not preliminary.
we should be able to get to final and then before starting construction uh have that permit. The department on this particular permit um the permit was pending almost a year before anybody
looked at it. We complained to an assistant commissioner and the permit was issued in three days. So, we're hoping that the department is changing the way it uh uh it processes applications. Wetlands permits are not,
you know, the 90-day rule. So, wetlands permits are not subject to 90-day rule. Uh but a year is ridiculous. So, I think they're they're understanding that they have to uh be a little more reasonable
and a little more prompt in provide and since this already has a permit, they're already familiar with it. This only affects about 100 ft. Uh hopefully we can get that permit quickly, but I don't want it to hold up with the board's approval. Uh if you grant it
preliminary, I don't want it to hold up final approval. So if I if I can just summarize from what I understand is being said is that the sidewalk is going to be extended. It's going to be trying to done be done under the existing appro permits that granted if they can't be done under the
existence amended permit will be sought but that will be a condition of final approval. >> Well it's requested legally I'm fine with that. So we could have that as if we were to grant it preliminarily, but it would be a condition of final >> that the sidewalk would be put in. And
>> no, I think they're agreeing to put the sidewalk in. It's just if amended to the permit timing wise, it's not a condition of preliminary. It's going to be just the permit. >> Yeah, but condition of of the final would be all of that done. >> Right. Listen, >> we get resolution compliance on final,
we can't start construction. Correct. Yeah, if I may, that that that's exactly what what what what would happen is you would show the permit. I mean, you would show the uh that se that sidewalk on the plans. If it can fit within your permit, great. You would just show it. If it's
not and it requires amended permit, you would label it on your on the final plans that you submit as pending NGTP permit so that I don't forget. Uh and then the permit would would be required prior to uh signatures of final plat,
>> right? question. So, >> and if the D doesn't approve of the sidewalk, then what happens? >> Then we're back here. >> That's all bets are >> then the applicant would have to come back and amend their approval. they have
to come back for >> I understand that there might be an additional cost when it comes to this. as a person who lives in a neighborhood that had an extension of the neighborhood in case you like you can see for me you want to try to keep it as consistent as possible and having a
sidewalk 100t off and quite frankly where the sidewalk ends right now doesn't even make any sense right it looks like all right well we just stopped for whatever reason right so if you were to say all right well we're putting in front of all our lots but then why continue it all the way around
but but connecting it there's children people going to be walking Halloween. I'm looking looking at right like I like I said like when I look at my my own personal neighborhood in Oldbridge when I wasn't living there when they did it but when they did it
they conformed to make it look as close as possible to as if it was always contiguous. >> So gentlemen uh what we'll do is that we'll um go and reapply for the sidewalk with the state. uh just to prepare you
mentally on that is that they would like to minimize the impact on wetlands and buffer. Uh so with that said in a condition like this one here they may ask us to eliminate the green buffer the green buffer between the uh the curb and
the sidewalk any typical sidewalk out there. meaning that uh they will force us to take the sidewalk in that area and shove it right against the curb which you see in a lot of areas in town but you will have your walk >> you you would do it on the one just the portion that you need to do it on. >> Yeah. So and the sidewalk would have to
be at least 5 >> to minimize the impact on wildland. So just just in case if we go and come back again we already talked about it is not most likely it's not going to be a green strip down.
>> Okay. Um, Ed, you you had a question. >> Um, not part of what you presented tonight. You have a a maintenance schedule for the uh the wetlands and the storm water treatment. You have a schedule of maintenance for it and it
was the budget was over $21,000 a year for maintaining that that basin. Is that only shared by those six residents in the HOA? It'll have to be because uh the town um originally was going to
maintain that, but as part of the approval a couple years ago, um the town wanted that to be uh part of this overall subdivision and maintained by the HOA. So, we'll the HOA will have to
maintain the basin. >> So, we're looking at access to each each one of those residents about $3,500 uh per year. >> Yeah. >> Maintaining that basement basin. >> Well, that Yeah. And they will know that
uh when they're uh viewing the site and and uh entering into a purchase agreement. All that will be disclosed. It's not going to it's not going to be something that comes up after the fact. I mean, we're we're not going to do
we're not going to do a homeowner association document and public offering statement like you see in the large projects, but we do a declaration and we do a two or three or four page summary of what it's about.
Galbard will have to pre will have to give me a budget and whatever it is it is. It'll do if it's you know 60,000 it's divided by I don't think it'll be that much it's divided by six. >> Yeah. And uh to add to that is that most
of the municipalities out there now they practicing uh the same thing. They changed their ordinance. They don't want to take any detention basins anymore. Public works they hit them. they feel that private uh companies they do you
know better work they have the equipment they have the money they they'll go and do it right so most of the towns out there that the now they gear in to remove it out of the ordinance no more taking over detention base and give it to the homeowner let him enjoy it >> and and this particular development also has a a manufacturer treatment device
that has to get maintained >> that is correct so we also have an underground that uh manufacturing treatment device that it needs to be maintained ain public works is not going to maintain that can tell you that it's above way above and beyond. Uh they need to add more employees. They need it's
just it's not working anymore. So with the state new regulation uh the uh green infrastructure is now you find that most of the towns and whole entire state now the removing that part from the ordinance no more taking uh drainage uh
basins. Okay. Charlotte, >> I I agree with the basins. Um, one of the the major parts with the basins is there's so many different kinds. You know, we could train our staff to maintain one particular basin, but then
um a different one gets built and then we have to retrain. So, that's part of the reason why the township would not want to maintain any additional basins within the township. Um, so, you know, this the sidewalk for me is extremely important. I've mentioned several times and I have kids, you know, I want to keep them safe. So, I I think
that's really important to continue the sidewalk all the way down um you know throughout the uh the new proposed street. The sidewalk that is not fronting any homes, who would be responsible for that maintenance? Would that also be like snow shoveling, stuff
like that? The township does have an ordinance. Sidewalks need to be cleared. >> Well, if it's a public street, uh I assume that would be the town. You don't want it. >> No, no, the township. >> We do not. >> All right. Well, we'll we'll have a list of again a list of things that the HOA
has to be responsible for. And even though that's a public street and it's in a public rightway, uh we can provide for the maintenance. >> It's basically, you know, the the township and it's every town, not just Old Bridge. They, you know, the sidewalk is in the public rightway, but like the
last two snowstorms, I was out there with my snowblower cleaning my sidewalk. And I think what Mr. Lenny's question is is the homeowners will will clear a sidewalk in front of their lots because that's what the township and every township requires, right? >> But what about the the sidewalk that's along the open space lot and uh that
would have be the owner of that lot which is the HOA. >> Again, I need is a list of things that the HOA needs to improve so we can produce a budget. >> Um you know, moving on the I see you guys have the roadway proposed as a
public roadway. I would strongly uh urge the board to make that a private roadway. You're going to have an HOA which is already going to be maintaining all the storm water structures in the backyards, the basin, the sidewalks. So, I would just have that included as well. Um the township currently uh oversees
200 culde-sacs already, 150 dead ends and 174 miles of roadway. Um this year alone, we've seen an increase in major snowstorms. It's it's very difficult for the township to continue to take on additional roadways. So, I would uh request that that is made a private
roadway incorporated into the HOA. We we had mentioned um names of the road. I actually grew up off of Brookside and Old Bridge. Frank's uh talking to The the only comment I would have is
that you mentioned we're doing >> 100 culde-sacs >> 200 >> 200 culde-sac. So um and not to make this adversarial. I mean it's a little selective to say we're going to do 200 and this one more is going to uh be the
thing that uh crosses the line. I mean, we're we're proposing it be public. We would do the sidewalks. And you're already doing plowing on the the main. I guess that's Colorado. Colorado. So, I mean, the plow is there. It goes in, it
comes out. So, >> I'm going to respectfully disagree that the township only remains two remain um maintains 200. There's probably an additional 300 that are under different HOAs throughout the township. So, you know, I sticking with my, you know, keep
that road private. >> Well, you have a vote and I don't. >> So, Joe, I have a question with you. So, council, we would have to do that, right? you would have to pick. >> Well, I just to clarify, even if this
board does make it a private roadway, uh under New Jersey law, if it meets if the roadway meets all of the township ordinance requirements and they request it to be taken over as a public road, the town township has to do so. So, um
you know, I I not to take it away. I know a very legitimate point, but it may be through, you know, even if it the applicant agrees to it now if the HOA in three years says, hey, we want to dedicate to this township to be a public roadway and as long as it meets all of
the township requirements for the roadway uh with and so forth, then the township's obligated by law to accept it as a public roadway. >> Just just as something but that's why we we have a legal team here. Yeah, we wouldn't we wouldn't do any maintenance
or plowing or anything like that until post construction till everything is said and done and all the cos are >> the dedicated the dedication is accepted. >> The dedication is accepted. Yep. Okay. >> And and uh that's uh typically that's
what's out there in most municipalities. They will do a pair of >> I stick with my um >> AC's still punch drunk. I don't think he's uh slept since the snowstorm. So, >> no. The uh uh to be fair, the Yes, I I see your concern. The uh homeowner
association should be uh responsible of the um landscaping and the trees and the sidewalk and the storm water facilities. That that's what I see in all the municipalities out there. But when you're talking about public right away meeting the township standards, uh then
you see the curb to curb, that's a township responsibility. >> I I understand and you know, I appreciate everybody's clarification. You know, I have to do what I believe is best. So, you know, I'm still going to, you know, try to fight for that. And uh >> we're not we're going to stop arguing on
this. >> Yeah. It's not an argument. You know, um you know, I just, you know, we we try to maintain a level of service for all the residents in town. and uh you know taking additional work you know with this project doesn't become an additional employee you know so you know that lowers the level of service for
every resident in town because >> it it sounds easy loop in loop out cold attacks you know on a regular 6 in snowstorm take 45 minutes to an hour you know and then later on we have to send a loader back to clear the mailboxes and you know stuff like that because it's difficult to handle in a um two foot
snowstorm like we just experienced we've been running 24 hours a day throughout the town to clear culde-sac. So, >> is that what you had in Old Bridge? >> The Ruckers hasn't put the official number out yet. I check it every 20 minutes, you know, just to see where we're at. Uh several numbers were posted
at 25 inches and Manalapin's numbers were posted at 25 inches. So, we're right in between. So, I'm figuring we're right right in that range. >> That's tough. >> Um moving on to the uh name. Um I mentioned I grew up off of Brookside. Um, when I was little, I didn't know there was another Brookside because it's
all the way on the other side of town. To add a third, you know, I I know you guys said that, um, you, you know, you weren't looking to do that. Um, I don't know if a lot of residents know. Um, well, besides that, I oversee uh a new program within the township, the Hometown Heroes Banner Program. Uh,
they're they were taken down for winter, but um, they'll be put back up in the spring. Um, and in my research, there was uh six Vietnam veterans or Vietnam soldiers that were killed. So, I would recommend that we start using their names um to honor them. Vietnam was a
bad time in America and I those gentlemen did not get the recognition they deserve. So, I think that, you know, if you're looking for a name, I can give you a couple. >> I think that's a great idea. My >> my best friend was killed in Vietnam in Laos where he shouldn't have been. So, I
I totally agree with that. >> All right, you guys give us a few names and we'll pick one. >> Yeah, absolutely. >> Uh sidewalks, the the open lot like in the beginning I it shows that 29.11 that's going to be
grass or proposed as grass >> the uh open space. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Uh well, the majority uh of that lot is wetlands and buffer. So, we really cannot do anything in there. >> Yeah. The rest of that Yes. will be if there is grass will be the grass be
mode. Yes. >> And that'll be part of the HOA as well. >> Yes. The the whole entire open space lot is part part of the HOA. >> And um that's all I have for right now. Thank you. >> I have a a question on on that front lot too. There is that existing drive now.
Um I think it's what Wernern Court or whatever. I think it's a paper road. >> Will that be taken out and then it would be returned back? Okay. Like because there's right now there's a I'm looking at the Google image now. It says a driveway and then it goes and then so is that going you're going to take that
asphalt out? Yes. >> And it's just going to go back to natural. >> We have to reconstruct it. You understand? >> We're going to we're going to need a demolition permit to take down that shed and other things. >> Yes. >> And the roadway itself that's there is going to be taken out return. >> Yeah. The the uh the driveway there.
Yes. >> Okay. Mr. forever. >> I'd like to make it clear at what point the roadway and and the storm base and everything is being accepted um for final approval and the roadway which I'm sure Joe is correct about. We probably
Obridge will probably be maintaining it but all six houses have to be completed uh in order for the roadway to be accepted by the town. >> All construction has to be completed. those houses.
>> I'm not sure it's going to be a public road. >> So the the process >> public >> most likely will be a public road, but I want to make it clear at what point will Obridge take over those that roadway maintenance. >> All houses have to be completed.
>> Yeah. So we have sim we have similar I don't want to say issues but we have similar developments going on now like particularly behind um Target like the oaks. We don't have those roadways aren't us. They're only dedicated. We have the ability to enforce traffic, but
we do not own we don't have the road yet. That's up to the the developer. So once the all the development is done, then they would be required to bring the roadway up to standard the final top coat down. Once the final top coat is down, I think as Joe would said as well
as Resh, then they could come to the township council and ask us to take the road and as long as it meets the standards, it we're almost required to do so. >> But it would be post construction and post once all of the roadways up to the
standard that the state has for for a new roadway. >> Are you saying that all the construction may not be completed? Is that what you're saying? it all has to be completed. >> Yeah, it have to be it would have to be completed. >> Yeah, we don't we don't release the I'm sorry, Mr. Councilman. We don't we don't
recommend release of of the performance guarantees uh until all the improvements are completed to uh to and township engineering department satisfaction and that means that all the construction has to be done and then it gets recommended to to council to release the performance
guarantees and then it goes on maintenance bond and it doesn't really officially it it doesn't become the township's headache until the maintenance bond is over. And I don't think the developer is going to want to put uh heavy machinery on a brand new asphalt as we all know what happens to
our driveways when our cars just parked there in the summer. >> Okay. Anybody else? Okay. I have one question. The basin, is it a detention or retention? So uh I don't know if you attended the
last seminar but uh >> I did review it and >> yeah so um the um this particular one they call infiltration basins so there is no when I started my testimony I said detention basin I said let me take it back it's a
stormwater facility so now they call them stormwater facility basins so it could be infiltration b most likely infiltration basins so it's an infilt restoration basin that has six inches of sand. And that's the reason public works, they hate that because they you
need to clean the the sand area. It's like a baby diapers, you know, you have to clean the sand, you have to replace the sand, and it becomes nuisance. But to answer your question, it's an infiltration basin. >> Okay. Thank you. Okay. I'm going to open
it up to the public. Anybody from the public like to uh ask questions of this witness? >> And Mr. Chairman, since um if I may just uh since this is the only witness that's being presented, uh we could just have the questions and comments at the same time. So you not have have people come
up twice. >> Okay. >> Questions or comments? Step forward. Thank you. Hello, ladies and gentlemen. Um, my name is Michael Keller. I live on the map you're looking at on lot five in the upper right hand corner. I will
probably be most impacted by this uh development. Um, so I don't can I have these passed up to you guys? I have some information that I put together. >> Yes, you just need to give a copy to the >> Okay. So,
So, in here there's uh a letter that I wrote to the EPA uh approximately a year ago when we received notice that uh the EPA was taking comments on this. There's also uh like a checklist in there of my concerns. And then there's a
little packet that has this map um a photo that I took a year ago of the area where they want to build lots 2916 and 2917 directly next to me. And then there's the map, the site map that was given to uh all people who purchased in
Winding Brook. This is actually surrounded by Winding Brook, not Rocky Creek. Rocky Creek is the development further back. um which is what I had when I selected my lot to be built. So >> Mr. Keller, just just not to interrupt
you, but just for recordeping purposes, we're going to mark this as exhibit 01. >> Okay. So that you know we have that for the record and um I will identify in the resolution um approval or denial whatever it is the board's final
decision uh that what is contained in this being the letters and your objections in the map. I have received a threepage letter dated February 28 >> uh and
and then a copy of a plan and I think just one sheet >> two sheets and then a photograph. Are those separate? >> Well, let's I'm I'm going to mark it all the whole exhibit just to keep it simple. Mark the whole the whole packet
as exhibit O001. Uh, and there's also a third uh outline dated February 24th, uh, 2026. Is that you have that as well? >> Uh, maybe it's in the folder. Let me look. >> Yeah, because you identified everything I have except that >> I missed one.
>> Checklist of opposition. >> Missed that one. >> Yeah, there's two things. Dated February 28th and a checklist dated February 24th. >> I thought that was just a another copy of one of them. Okay. Okay. So, that whole packet will mark as 01. Just for record,
>> let me just and we're going to listen to all the comments, but um if they don't relate to land use and the zoning ordinance, uh I'm not sure how relevant it is, but having said that, I will be quiet.
>> We need to hear the comment first before we can make that decision. >> So, my my first concern is I guess more of a personal one. It may be something I have to take up in civil court. It might not be your issue, but if you look at the map that was given to us when we when I purchased in Winding Brook, um
the area where they want to build these two particular lots, um 2917 and 16 next directly next door to my lot was designated as open space. This weighed heavily on my decision to purchase that
lot as I wanted to be next to open space. And as it was presented to me as open space is clearly marked on the map, I purchased it. And now a year ago, I received this notification that they want to build two additional homes next to me in that open space, which I think
is a problem and was misrepresented to me. So that's my first objection. My my second objection to those two lots in particular is they want to put an HOA in this. And if you build two houses next
to mine that are in an HOA and mine isn't, you're creating a situation where there's going to be conflict. These people within the HOA are not going to understand why I don't have to pay and they have to pay. And there may be a legal explanation for it, but it's going to create conflict with me and my future
neighbors. Additionally, they may not understand that why I don't have to follow their HOA rules. If there's rules about lighting, if there's rule about fencing that they have to follow and I'm directly next door to them and do not, they will for all
appearances seem to be part of Winding Brook even though they're considered to be part of Brookside Villas. And that's going to be an issue. Um, so that's my my my first set of issues with that those two particular lots. Additionally,
with those two particular lots, that land is wetlands. If you look at the photo that I presented you, I took this photo about a year ago. Now, you might remember the autumn of 2024 was
particularly dry, and we did not have a particularly snowy or wet winter in 2024, 2025. You can see how wet that sidewalk is. It's like a river. It's like that 10 months of the year. I've lived there for
12 years. It's always wet. Public works has been there in the past and installed drainage and it doesn't matter. It's always wet. And you can see the vegetation there. That's fragmitees. Fragmmites only grows in wetlands. Now,
the state may not have told them that they have to designate this wetlands, but it clearly is. So, aside from the fact that they're going to push this water possibly more onto my lot, and I can tell you when I bought my lot, the three or four lots above mine, which sit
higher in elevation of mine, weren't built on. And since those were built, more and more water has been pushed onto my lot. My lot gets wet a lot. So, I'm additionally concerned that this water is going to get pushed some onto my lot,
creating a bigger water problem for me. Aside from that, you're going to sell two unsuspecting homeowners houses on land that are going to be wet. Now, my house maybe shouldn't have been built. I snuck into my house a number of
times while they were building it just to check on construction. for a long time during the construction of my house too. It was three feet of standing water in the basement and until the sump pumps went in and turned on, it was there. It wasn't there once I moved in, but I looked in there plenty of
times to see how deep that water was. So, more water means more water possibly in my lot, possibly in my basement. And the water that's on those two lots is going to go into those people's basements. So, they're going to have a constant problem and they're going to be
unsuspecting. Now, if they do manage to push that water off of that lot into their proposed filtration basin, that water is going to go somewhere. Now, I don't know how often any of you drive over in that area or live over there, but the water
ends up in Barkley Brook, and there's a little bridge that goes over Barkley Brook on Englishtown Road. Anytime there's significant rainfall, the water goes over the banks and onto that bridge. Thankfully, not yet to the point that you have to close Englishtown Road,
but if you push more water onto it, you may start to have to close Englishtown Road and have more road closures that you already have on Texas Road. There's a an additional home near the Wawa on Englishtown Road that that water always pours out down onto Englishtown Road and causes a problem. There's also a
gentleman uh a family that lives across the street from where Colorado uh ends. There's a large lot there is like a little bit of a farm and when we get significant rainfall, the water goes over that brook and I've seen that guy's
lot covered with 3 ft of water. And I'm sure he wasn't notified about this, but they probably have a legitimate reason to be concerned about where all that water is going to go. And then additional concerns I have about this are the financial in impact they may
have on me as it looks like the lots that they have designated on this site and the homes they have designated on this site are smaller than the rest of the homes in the Winding Brook and R and Rocky Creek community which may lower my home value as now there's going to be
smaller homes smaller lots directly next to mine in addition the people who surround it. >> I just have to stop you on that point because this board is not allowed to consider but legally effect on property values, you know, on that. That's I just want to make so you're clear and just the board's clear.
>> Yep. Um let me see. >> That's that's the law. That's that's my list of concerns. >> Thank you, sir. >> Thank you. >> I'll be very brief. Uh we're consistent
with the R20 which are minimum of half acre. All our lots are half acre or larger. Um the HOA when you buy a house in this development before you sign the contract, you're going to know what the
obligations are. what you have to maintain what the what the HOA maintains. This gentleman bought his house from I believe uh Wood Haven. Wood Haven is not the applicant here.
Um and the the area that he refers to as wetlands was viewed, walked on, inspected by D and they're not wetlands. They were not delineated as wetlands. U
that's all I my only comments. >> Okay. U any other comments? >> Go ahead. You want to make another comment? >> Um so while it may be a different company
Bob built my house. >> I was there when you was there. You're right. You like the I was there also when you Mr. >> Chair is that I'm not Yeah, I'm just conversation. It's not >> I'm just saying like to say it's not the
same builder is disingenuous. >> No, it's accurate. >> Okay, >> I have order here. You got to come up. >> You got to come up to the microphone. >> I'm sorry. One other thing um the one other thing I
did want to say is if this is going to be a separate HOA community, it probably should have a sign so that so that there's some delineation so that those people understand that they're not part of the rest of the community.
>> Okay, sir. Good evening. Uh, I just want to second what he said about the uh, ownership. Um, >> give your name. >> I'm sorry. Alberto Corddero. Uh, I'm in lot 7. Uh, my house is, um, looking at
the map. It is directly behind >> 2913 and 29. >> That's it. Yep. Um, uh, I second what he said about the wetlands as well. Um, I constantly walk my dog and jog. And in that area of the Palamino Drive, I have
to cross the street and go to the other side and if it's wet, I usually just turn around because it's can't even walk through it or run through it. Um, I do want to second what he said about the ownership. Um, I know maybe different names, but I did deal with Rob
throughout the whole building of the house. So, that's that's my comment. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. Are there any other comments? >> Name is with my husband as well. We live on Arizona Avenue.
Everything he said we can hear >> whatever the gentleman said we have the same feeling and most of the neighborhood around our development feel the same way. We live on 35 Arizona across street from us that is a failed
basin that was never put there. It's filled with water incredible through the summer. So it is a big issue and this is like also might be an eyesore for our development which is really a shame because we have a beautiful development
and now we have something that I don't know that's going to look like and and actually we just found out that those house were going to be built because we didn't receive any uh notification or anything. We just found out from through our friends that's it
that's all I have to say. We oppose any of those. Great. >> Thank you. Any other comments? Okay. Seeing nami public se session attorney. >> Okay.
>> Yes, Mr. Chairman. >> Agreements. The uh the board's now asked to vote on whether it will approve this application which is for major uh subdivision but at this time only preliminary approval. The applicant would have to come back for final if it
was approved by the board. Uh the applicant uh if approved, if voted in favor of uh agrees as conditions of approval to the standard conditions, which includes compliance with the board's professional and the township's professional reports subject to the
testimony and the uh uh comments that were given uh as part of this public hearing. Um the um additional conditions that were discussed this evening was one was the removal of the signage uh from
the application. Um it was the um confirmation that the HOA will be responsible for all open space lot the storm water facilities on all of the lots. That's including the the the facility uh the facilities that are
located on the individual lots as well as the HOA would be uh responsible for the maintenance of the sidewalks that do not have specific frontage on the res individual residents. Um the applicant agrees to extend the
sidewalk uh throughout the whole proposed new roadway that will have a new uh name that will be uh determined at a future date. uh they will either obtain um either do it within the existing D permit or uh get amended a
permit uh prior to uh any uh grant as a condition of final approval. Uh and if they can't get um either one and the D permit would not be granted with the sidewalk, they will return to the board for further uh discussion and relief. Um
those are the other specific conditions uh that were discussed. So a oh and the grant of approval would also be granting uh the waiverss and the variances that were testified to there was only one variance with regard to uh a technical variance with regard to the u
excuse me the non minimum non-critical area percentage. >> Okay. Thank you. Okay. Do we uh have a motion to approve or deny or
>> Yes, believe the the chairman is calling for a motion. I'll move it. >> I'll second. >> Just encourage Mr. Diplom to motion to approve. >> Motion to put it to a vote. Yes. >> Put it to >> a motion to put vote. Okay.
>> Well, that's What do you mean? >> Well, we got a vote. Yes or no? So, motion to second it and then we vote. Roll call vote. So, we have a motion to second. >> Okay, Mr. Palmer.
>> Yes. Based off the fact that it's it's a conforming project and there are no variances that would preclude this from happening, I would just hope that um the developer works with the neighbors to ensure that their concerns are alleviated and as they come to final, we
can address those issues going forward. >> Mr. Um, similar to Councilman De Palama, I'm going to vote yes tonight. Um, based on the fact that, you know, it is conforming, but um, you know, I would like that the developer does work with
uh, you know, the residents based on some of the uh, facts they brought up tonight and anything else that might uh, arise during future development. >> Mr. TMA, >> no. Miss Canon, >> no.
>> Mr. Rena, >> no. >> Mr. Petty, >> no. >> Miss Misella, >> no. >> Mr. McIac, >> no. >> And Chairman Lowour, >> no. >> Chairman Lowour? >> Oh, sorry. >> No.
>> So, the motion fails by a vote of 7 to two. All right. Thank you for your time. It's very unusual that a conforming application gets denied and that usually means there's some step afterwards. Absolutely.
>> Okay. Uh we're going to open up to general public comments. See no hands to close the general public comment portion. Uh I need a motion to adjurnn. >> Move it. >> Second.
>> All in favor? I