--------- That would be nice. >> So, so you're 20% greater than what's required, right? >> 125 is required for >> and as as currently designed um with the
4T and the 40 foot wide road and we we heard from the board they're going to want 50 ft, right? >> Yes. So that would take you as opposed to a lot width of 150 to a lot depth of
about 95 ft, right? 95 96. >> Uh it would be 50 ft. So it would be 94 96. So I So we're going from >> I couldn't get >> a situation where you're 20% greater
basically in conformance 20% greater to a proposed development that is pretty good math 56% of the uh required lot depth over 9.
>> Yeah. Uh if this were the corner lot, uh I think that would be the width though, right? For the new So we said 96 ft, so it's 125. So it would be >> But that's but that's if you reorient the house, >> right? I I think you would have to
>> Yeah. Okay. So even even with that so as currently designed you'd be going from a conforming lot something that's 44% less than what's required but let's say you do come back and reorient the house to
face all to pen road you would still be again 96 feet being let's call it you know 80%. >> Versus 125 whatever that number is. Yeah probably 80%. Yes. >> Right. If you could just look up at the
I guess the tax map there, right? Would you say they're the lots are pretty consistent consistently compliant uh with the existing zoning requirements? >> I didn't do an analysis on really, but
here 125 foot. And again, although it's clever to do the 4ft strip u and take it off my client's property, but yeah, that really counts as a lot width
as well, right? And refer the requirement for another variant. >> Well, I'll have to review that. Yeah, >> sure. >> All right. So, you know, again, you're going to they're going to revise the plan is what I'm understanding. I don't want to
>> We'll summarize it at the end. We'll summarize it at the end, but >> Okay. >> Do you have any other questions? Usually, you have a lot more questions. I'm a little disappointed. >> Yeah. No, you know what? I'm tired. >> No, again, I think >> um >> Yeah, if you're coming back with a new plan and and we're going to come back a
lot, I don't think it's >> going to be this plan again. The one point is uh I think it's still although it's a road with that little strip could technically still be considered a flag lot because it's not
>> you're creating a very strange condition and again we have concerns my client again of the maintenance of that portion as well. >> Gotcha. Okay. >> All right. >> Thank you. >> Anybody else from the public have any questions to Mr. Mr. Hubsman or our
professionals regarding Mr. Hubsman's testimony. >> Questions only. >> Questions only. No comments. >> Yeah. Question. >> Come up and then announce your name and address. >> I have a kick in my leg here. I apologize.
>> That's from sitting there all time. Right. >> Yeah. Uh Frank Bianke, uh 31 Moser Place. um used to spend a lot of time uh in places like this when I was involved with the town. But uh I just want to compliment first of all what a great job
you you guys working through this issue. So just kudos to that. I think the questions were very substantive. I appreciate that. I'm here in support of the people in the neighborhood. I think might have been Bob that that um sort of
map is you know we spent a lot of time >> not to be rude but you have to ask question >> otherwise I got to swear you on questions. >> Okay. Um >> there's not commentary about putting two
um houses into one and all that has been dissected. >> So I think really one house in that property from our perspective is the way to go. But but one of the things that I'm very concerned about is what is the people that live in the neighborhood not
just on the old pan roadside but along Moser. Okay. They're now going to have their backyards across four or five different um uh houses now covering multiple properties. What is the
property value impact to those people who who now have from having trees and open space to actually having parties and windows? >> Your question directed to you, sir? >> Well, the question is what is the impact to their property value?
>> I don't think any of the witnesses will be able to answer that question. >> I'm asking I'm asking the planning board. >> The planning board is not testifying. It's Mr. Huxman and the two professionals. >> Well, the two professionals, can they give us a perspective? Is Is there an
impact to their property value? >> They're not real estate appraisers. >> I don't think they're going to be able to tell you that or answer that question. Robert, >> I could be wrong. No, I I would not be able to offer that opinion because I'm not a real estate appraiser. >> But but the point was made before that
you have to not only map this to the property, but map it to the master plan. If this doesn't sit right with the master plan, by default, it's an impact to the property value. >> Okay, >> you're making a statement. We need a question. >> I asked a question
>> and they can't answer the question. >> I think you've gone as far as you can go on that issue. You want to ask something else related to engineering? Go ahead. >> I think that it's a it's a fair question that nobody on this board can answer. What you may want to do is you may want
to speak to some real estate people and at the follow-up meeting perhaps they could testify. >> You could call them as a witness. >> Yeah, you call them as a witness and they can testify as to what the impact would be to property value. >> Okay. >> I think that would be a good way to do it. >> That sounds like a good remedy. And also
just a final thing uh final question is somebody mentioned um you know the deer okay before um and I can tell you that that second house is a trail between the deer going right through that second
house to uh Addison down to where the the uh the different stream is. So, has anyone really impact taken an impact on the wildlife? Because we've got eagles there, we've got owls there, we've got
deer, we've got red fox. What now? You're going to be ripping up that second piece. Has anyone assessed the wildlife impact? >> It's a good question. >> First of all, the board's not testifying. >> The question is either to Mr. Huffman or the board professional.
>> Yeah, that right. I think the answer is going to be no. But >> I think they should have a wildlife assessment uh done to the impact um of this >> and and I guess I would just like one last question if I may is that that this
type of scenario which um doesn't it's almost like a square peg and a round hole. Um, everybody in town that has this kind of long back can now start to come and create their own little road, okay, and their own little second modernization program. So, I would be
real careful of that. You're not setting a precedent that is going to impact 30, 40, 50 more homes. So, >> decisions of this board are never presidental. >> Well, they can be referenced. >> Now, it's case law. >> Well, it's okay. you referenced no crest
here about about a decision made by a previous board so it could come up again but thank you for your time really appreciate that >> no I do appreciate that um anybody else from the public have questions we have to really stick to questions
regarding the testimonies by the three professionals anybody else come on up like Wayne you give your name and address >> certainly great longardi 82 old pan road
>> okay >> u my question has to do with aesthetics >> and >> and is is it regarding the testimony by the engineer because if it's aesthetics it might be better for the planner when >> or the architect when they do their
presentation ask the question and we'll let you know how's that >> so you know beauty is in the eye of the beholder >> right >> you know we're talking about a 4ft strip which is probably about the size from there and then we're going to put a fence up 4 ft high and
you know keeping with what you said about the aesthetics of the town. I don't know how that fits and that's my question. you're it seems that a lot is being done to make this fit for your purposes, but
how is this going to keep with how the rest of the town looks? And you know, now I'm going to be staring at this across the street from myself and the folks who live right next door are going to be staring at this. So, what is the concern about the aesthetics for the
neighborhood by doing this and keeping this kind of pristine neighborhood that we've had pristine? >> Doesn't really have much to do with my testimony, but you know, we had some comments from the board uh and a lot on
the aesthetics of of the front, how it looks, changing some of the planting, the fence and so forth. So, you know, we are concerned about the aesthetics and how it fits in and we'll come back with a revised plan that, you know, maybe address that more. I don't think we might really testify on aesthetics.
>> Okay. >> Do we know if there are you going to have a landscape architect do any presentation on anything? Uh I we had not anticipated that but I think uh Mike is going to revise the landscaping plan
and um uh so some of this stuff can be done with landscaping. We would prefer to do it with landscaping rather than structure. >> Mr. Chairman >> for screening. Um we I I know that um
I I'm sure that we don't want to we don't want to put lights. So if so if the board agrees with the very perceptive comment over here that we don't need to have all these lights, we would just assume dispense with the
lights and add landscaping to add to the aesthetics of the of the property. >> Okay, Mr. Chair. >> Well, obviously we need to see that. >> Sure. Now, somebody was just I think it was ahead. Yeah. >> Yes. I just wanted to point out for the members of the public um that when an
applicant comes in for a variance, part of the variance process and review is in fact the impact to the neighborhood and the aesthetics. So that is one of the factors that they can consider depending upon the type of variances that we're looking at. So that sometimes factors into it as well. >> Thank you very much.
>> So just to that point though, um you will have a planner, not necessarily a landscape architect, >> you will have a planner >> who's going to testify >> 100%. >> Okay. So at one point, Mr. Longabari, you might want to revisit that question and I'm sure Ed can respond to that as well. >> Anybody else from the public have any
questions of our professionals? Okay, seeing none, do we have a motion to close the meeting to the public? >> So moved. >> Second. >> All in favor? I. >> All righty. Now, you had suggested that instead of continuing with testimony,
you may want to make some changes. Yes, your Yes, we would like >> I like being called your honor, but >> it does it does give me a little bit of a thrill. I'm not going to lie. >> An old trial lawyer. What can I tell you, but um yes, we would like to have that opportunity. >> What? The March meeting,
>> huh? >> March. >> March, I think. >> What's our March meeting date? >> So, we can make an announcement. >> Should be on the agenda. >> 11th. >> March 11th. Well, the hearing will be carried to that date without any further notice. >> Thank you.
>> Okay. And and just there there aren't any automatic approval issues but exception. >> You extended time. >> We extended >> until March 11th. >> There there were an a lot of commentary, a lot of comments, a lot of questions, and a lot of concerns um that we're
hoping that you take all into consideration um you know when you come before us again. That's what we'd like to do >> because this is what we want for this site. We we want two residences. This is what we want. >> Thank you.
>> As long as you understand the concerns of the board and and >> the potential risk to your client. So, >> thank you. >> All right. Okay. >> What do we say? March 11. Yes, sir.
Mr. All right, just give me one minute. >> Looks like an art. >> All right. Anything else on the agenda? >> Make a motion to open to the public >> for non-aggenda items. >> I want to second that. >> Did we do that already? >> All in favor? >> I I
>> All right. Does anybody from the public have any questions of the board regarding non-aggenda items? Seeing none, >> motion to close. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> Motion to close the meeting. >> Motion to
>> second. All in favor. >> Thank you. Approval Ed. Part: 2
Test, test, test. In compliance with the open public meetings law, notification of this meeting has been sent to our official newspapers and other new other publications circulated in the burrow of Voltipan and notice has been posted on the Bolton board at Burrow Hall. Please note all meetings are videotaped and
posted on the website. Fire exits are located at the main entrance of the council chambers uh and in the rear of the council chambers. Everybody please stand to salute the flag. I >> pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation
under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Okay, we're at this meeting uh as every first meeting of the year is our reorganization. So, we're going to spend the first I don't know 20 minutes, half hour on that and then we're going to have our regular meeting. So, uh can we
do a roll call? >> Mr. Mio >> present. >> Mr. Mary >> here. >> Mr. Ke >> here. >> Mr. Allessie. >> Mr. D >> here. >> Council Morte >> here. >> Council Boyce >> here. >> Mudith. >> Mr. Scavafava >> here.
>> Mr. Bine >> here. >> Mr. Xarian >> here. >> Mr. Kramer >> here. >> Mr. Petraelloi >> here. All righty. Um, now we're going to do nomination of uh different members of the board. Um, the first one is the nomination and election of the chairman.
Does anybody have any >> What about the swearing in? Are you not going to do that? >> I guess we can't, right? How does that work? >> I wasn't. >> Who was reappointed? >> It's on. >> It's here. >> Copy of the >> It's Does everybody be sworn in?
>> I see Mike's car. That's >> them. >> Swear them in first. Okay. >> All right. All right, we're going to do that first. So, uh, Juan, Tom, Bill, Mike's not here. Dave, is Dave here? >> Yep. >> Yep. >> Uh, Mike Aarian, John Kramer, and Sam Petraelli, please stand.
Okay. >> Please raise your right hands and repeat after me. I state your full name. >> I do solemnly swearn that I will support the Constitution of the United States. that I support the Constitution of the United States >> and have the Constitution of the State of New Jersey >> and the Constitution of the State of New
Jersey >> and that I will bear true faith >> I will bear true faith >> and allegiance >> and allegiance >> to the same to the same >> and to the governments >> and to the government >> established in the United States >> established in the United States >> and in this state >> and in this state >> under the authority of the people >> under the authority of the people
>> and that I will faithfully >> and I will faithfully >> impartially >> impartially >> and justly perform >> and justly perform >> all the duties >> all the duties >> of the office >> of the office >> of planning board member >> a planning board member >> of course to the best of my ability to
>> the best of my ability to help me congratul here so he'll get sworn in next month and our newest planning board member Vicken will be sworn in next month because the first has to go through the um >> through the uh mayor and council on the 20th and I'll talk a little bit about that in a couple of moments. Um, all
right. Next up is nomination and election of the chairman. Uh, anybody have any nominations? >> I I nominate. >> We're looking at him. >> Oh, wow. >> Magio.
>> Any other nominations? >> Close nominations. >> Okay. >> Second. >> All in favor of the nominee? >> I I thank you very much. Any opposition? >> Okay. >> All right. >> Well, let's do nomination and election
of the vice chairman. Um, and I'll start. I nominate Nick Mary. >> Second. >> Any other nominations? Seeing none, >> vote to close nominations. >> Second.
>> All in favor? >> I. >> All right. All right. Next is going to be the nomination and election of a financial secretary. Now, let me before we nominate Nikki. Uh you need to know that Nikki had to step down as a full
planning board member because of a professional conflict. We're making her an alternate because she provides tremendous value to our board. And so, because she'll only be here half the time, um we're going to need somebody else to fulfill the duty as a financial secretary. Tonight, one of our oldtime
veterans, Hall of Famers, uh, Nick Mary is stepping in as interim financial secretary, but I can say with confidence he's not interested in continuing to do that. So, do we have any nominations for financial secretary? >> I nominate Bob.
>> Wow. >> Yep. >> I was going to say Mike's not here, so let's do him a favor. But >> any other nominations? Oh god. >> Hearing none.
>> Move to close nominations. >> Second. >> Second. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> Congratulations, Bob. >> There. Anybody oppose? >> No. >> Didn't hear I didn't hear anything. >> Even when you >> and I I imagine that Jen will get
together with Bob to explain to him how that process works. >> All right. Um, skip over communications, I assume. Right? If there are any are there any communications? >> Um,
that's we'll do that later. Okay. Resolutions. Uh, we have board attorney appointment, burough engineer appointment, burough planner appointment, and board secretary appointment. And then we'll do the and then we'll do the uh meeting dates. So,
let's start with the board attorney. How was that done? Maybe I'll ask my board attorney. >> If there's a resolution, it should be a motion and seconded. >> All right, let's see what we got. Let's >> And only nine people vote cuz we have a
pretty much a full compliment. >> I don't know where that is. You got a resolution, Jen. >> Whatever it >> It's just a contract. >> Ah, >> that's just a contract. >> Well, can I have a motion to approve the
contract? >> We could do that. Um, >> check it. Let's just make sure it's >> Yeah, let me check every page. >> No, that's it. I was told everything's good for that.
>> You know what I don't understand is why when I submit an RFP, it goes to the B clerk. The mayor and council do not appoint me, >> right? >> I litigated a case to that. >> Mhm. >> Just the name of the case is Leon Planning Board versus Leonia B reported
decision from 1987. >> So you you know all about this. >> Well, I do. But I always ask that question. Why do I have to submit? I I I don't mind, right? But why I have to submit my RFP to the to the burough clerk when it's not a borrow burough
council appointment? But >> be that as it may. >> So what what we we're going to have the same issue now with the engineer, the planner, and and I guess what's >> I don't know what they had to do. All I know is I had to submit my response to the RFP by a certain date to the burl
and I did. I submitted it. But that's not how it works. >> Does anybody here have any idea what we need to do in a situation like this? >> This is new. >> Well, I've done it in the past and I've raised this issue in the past, too. Maybe not
with the whole board, maybe with the chairman >> because there's usually a resolution to read, right? >> Usually there is, >> but it's not up to me to prepare that. I mean, that's >> last year I was given something from the clerks.
Okay. Well, >> whatever. >> It's It's embarrassing and disappointing, but um doesn't bother me. >> What can we do for an interim in the meantime to appoint me as as planning board attorney for tonight or for the year? Whatever you want to do. >> Well, obviously I would want to do it
for the year, but are we doing anything that's improper or >> No, absolutely not. >> Well, then why don't we do that? Why doesn't somebody make a motion for Bob? Make a motion to appoint Bob for the as the attorney for the planning board for the entire calendar year.
>> Second. >> Love it. >> All in favor? >> I. >> Congratulations. >> Thank you for your vote of confidence. >> Um, one last before we go to the next one. We still need to get that information though from
tomorrow. >> Okay. Thank you. All right. Same. Um, burrow engineer. Does anybody have a recommendation for approval? for the burrow engineer. >> It's actually the burrow board engineer who can be the same also the burrow engineer.
>> Board engineer and burrow engineer nominate burough engineer to be the board. >> Can I nominate Tom Scra? >> You can nominate him. >> Okay, I'd like to. >> All in favor? >> Any objections? >> Congratulations, Tom.
>> Uh burrow planner. So, uh, in this case, we know that John Zabbo retired. I think everybody met Ed, but if you want to just introduce yourself real quickly to everybody. >> Good evening, everybody. Edward Snikus from Purchase Associates. I'm a partner with the firm. >> I've known Ed for years. You're really lucky.
>> Yeah. No, I I I enjoyed the the time that he's been with us replacing John. Any recommendations uh for for appointing Ed? >> Yes. What's the point? >> I guess that's a motion. I guess that we purchased.
>> All right. So, we get a second to that motion. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> All right. Next up is um recording and board secretary Jen. >> Um same question. Anybody want to make a motion? >> I would like to make a motion to
reappoint her. >> Thank you. >> Second. Anybody second that? >> All in favor? >> Great. We're managing to get through this. >> Yes. All right. meeting dates. So, um I think we discussed this at a previous
meeting, but we have all of our meeting dates set out for the second Wednesday of the month, as it's been for the last several years, 7 p.m. It's listed here on the agenda. Does anybody have any questions or objections to any of the
dates? >> Hearing none, does anybody want to make a motion to approve the meeting dates? Uh, yes. >> Um, >> stop you there, Tom. >> Okay. >> We gave it back. So, the burrow will be open. >> Okay. >> So, 1111 is Veterans Day. We gave it
back in order to have January 2nd off. >> I'll take January 2nd. So, I just >> It's just It's a legal holiday. >> Yeah. >> But apparently the burrow uh has changed it. Yes. >> All right. That's a good question,
though. I'm glad we at least know that >> move it to a different day. You just let me know and I will let the clerk's office know. >> Is that we can have that conversation? I mean, I don't know that who that impacts in terms of our professionals. >> It kind of been what you move it to.
>> You move it to the next Wednesday. >> That would be the third Wednesday of the month. >> Yeah. >> This way I think >> I was going to potentially be a problem of the week. >> It gets closer to Thanksgiving. >> It's a week before. Yeah. >> It's all right.
11. It's >> always the week before Thanksgiving, >> which is that >> 114. >> 114. Isn't that a holiday, too? >> No. >> No. >> The first one except I have another meeting that I have planned being another town.
>> It is the week of the teachers convention and a lot of people go on vacation that week. But >> can you do it on the 12th, the following day? >> Thursday. No, >> I'm tied up second uh first, second, and fourth. >> November.
>> Well, we might end up having to do >> it that day. >> You okay with that? >> I'm I'm just pointing it out. >> Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Just wanted to make sure. All right. So, we're going to leave it as is and then we'll deal with it when it when it comes. Anybody want to make a motion to approve the dates?
>> Motion to approve. >> Second. >> Thank you. Any All in favor? I I >> Excellent. >> All right, that ends the reorganization of our meeting. Can somebody make a motion to close the meeting? >> I'll make a motion. >> Second. >> Second. >> All in favor?
>> I. >> And just thank you for your confidence. I appreciate it. Sorry about this little mishap today, even though we didn't know about it. But it's about learning how to curve balls. All right, we're going to now open the regular portion of our meeting.
Um, do we need to do a roll call for that again? as a Zoom member just for one. >> Okay. So, let's do a roll call. >> Mr. Mario >> here. >> Mr. Mi >> here. >> Mr. Tele >> here. >> Mr. Ali. >> Mr. John >> here. >> Captain Marte >> here. >> Counc
>> here. >> Mr. Scava >> here. >> Mr. Badin >> here. >> Mr. Xarian >> Mr. Kramer >> here. >> Mr. Prezoi >> here. >> Miss. >> All right. Now, we're going to open the meeting for to the public for
non-aggenda items. Does anybody in the public have any questions of the board unrelated to items on the agenda? Have to do a motion for that? >> Yeah, just take a vote. >> Yeah. I'll make a motion to open the
meeting to the public for non-aggenda items. >> Second. All in favor? >> I. >> All right. Everybody knows what we want to do. Anybody have any questions? >> Motion to close. >> Second. >> Thank you. All right. Minutes. Do we have do we
have any minutes? No. None. All right. Any new business? Seeing none old business. Um, we did get a memo from Mr. Zabbo regarding the uh master plan update.
Ed, I don't know. You're Are you familiar with the status of this? If you want to. >> Yeah, he and I talked about it. Um he might have given you more detail than I know of but I understand that he is now uh as it combines itself with the housing element and fair share plan as
many may know is that we had to we are going to be revising or amending the housing element fair share plan based upon recent uh agreements that we've received with fair share housing center and so those amendments will have to be reflected in the housing element fair share plan that then reflects itself on
the re-examination report. So, the two are somewhat tied together. So, that is something that John is still working on. Uh, just so you know, uh, because he wanted to carry through on those issues and we'll be reporting back to the board. Mr. Chairman, did he give you any dates when he was looking to get back before the board?
>> I I don't I don't see any on this memo. I was just about to ask you if you knew of an ETA on that. >> Yeah, what I would offer is that probably in February, we should be planning on at least allocating some time for the housing element fair share plan. The reason being is that there's
some things tied to the actual agreements and that in the Fair Housing Act by March 15th of 2026, all municipalities have to have their housing elements finalized and to the program uh to the state program. So that
then if you back into that time frame, that's why February is probably a likely time frame by which we may have to anticipate a public hearing for amendments to the master plan. >> Ed, will you communicate that to John? I will. And so then he'll come here. You'll both be here that day. >> Yes, I would anticipate that.
>> Um Jen, let's put that on the agenda for next month. What about the master plan portion itself? >> That would be following that document and I I can't speak to the actual timetable for that. But he was saying that he's working on it. He does have parts of it started, but then it has to be correlated with the housing element.
So it would be following that probably in March or possibly April. >> Okay. It would be nice to get an update on that as well. This is from December 11th. >> Okay. cuz he said he was going to try to reach out to you today. I apologize then. >> That's okay. >> Everybody's been really busy with the beginning of the new year.
>> All right. So, master plan TBDN. There were other items in the master plan that we were asking him to do uh including some design criteria. So, I again would love to get an update on that. >> Okay. >> All right. Any other old business? >> Chairman Majio. >> Yes, sir.
>> Um I have one thing. The Oaks Power House is going out to bid for a reconstruction of the design that we have the architectural plan for. Mr. Scrabble, I think, is nearing completion of the site plan. So, it'll be going out to bid soon. Um, recalling what happened
with the DPW maintenance building. Would the planning board like a uh to review what that might look like at the Oaks Park prior to >> I think that would be nice. It would just be a courtesy, I imagine. Right. >> As a courtesy. >> Yeah. No, I think that would be nice for us to take a look at that.
>> All right. So, I'll uh tee up somebody from maybe DPW to do that uh maybe at the next meeting. Does that sound appropriate? >> Yes, we have right now we have no application. So, we're going to get a nice update on the master plan uh on the fair share housing and we'll get that as
well. So, >> all right. Oaks, right? >> Oaks Park House. Yes. >> Okay. Um before we go further on what's shown on the agenda, um there are a few things that are not on here. So um do we have a mayor and c
do we have a council report? >> I can give you a brief one unless uh Marty would like to. No. >> Uh well, we are entering budget season, so that'll keep the council very busy. We uh we are working on the police
contract for the chief and also for the police department. We are uh just going to be very busy doing that. Um we just did our reorg meeting and uh it was a extremely lengthy meeting. We
reappointed many people back into all the same positions that they were in prior. Um and we're expecting a great year coming up. >> Excellent. Anything else? >> Not unless anybody has questions.
>> All right, think that's good. >> Tom, do you have an engineers report? >> No new report. >> Um Dave, an environmental report. >> Uh just briefly, we have our first meeting of the year next Wednesday, the 21st. Um our plan is to, you know, have
the usual annual initiatives and uh as Bill just mentioned, budget season's coming up. We've submitted a new budget to the burrows. So, we hope they're funded to have a few additional initiatives. So, uh >> nice or tree saplings or >> Well, a little bit little bit different
twist this time, but I don't want to let the cat out of the bag until we got me curious. Okay. >> Um I don't know if we're ready yet for the financial secretary. >> We are. >> We are. Financial secretary. >> Okay. For budget, we have uh two charges totaling $840.
And out of escrow, we have five charges totaling 5,46508. Total $6,358. We have a motion. >> Motion accept. >> Anybody second that? >> All in favor?
>> Great. Did I miss any of our normal agenda items? >> I don't think so. >> Okay. All right. Uh resolutions and ordinances. >> None. >> None. Okay. >> And that takes us to applications. Uh
next up is with Pride Trust 93 Old Pan Road. I think we saw an initial application of this back in May. >> Yes, you did. Uh Mr. Chairman, good evening. Uh Richard Abrahamson on behalf of the >> I have a question. Um
>> the applicant is really 93 old wrote assessment. >> That is correct. Wood Pride Trust is the entity that owns 93 Ultra Parro. >> Thank you for the correction. >> Okay. I just wanted to be clear about that. >> Yes. And and you will recall that and we recall that the board was not very
receptive to our initial uh application. We proposed >> you were here on according to my file May 14th. >> Yeah. >> Okay. And you started a public hearing that day, >> correct? >> Marked into evidence as exhibit A1 was a subdivision plan revised to 1925.
Uh there were several board professional reports, Mr. Scrabble and Mr. Zbo, and you went through the hearing. We're continuing. This is a continued hearing then tonight. Is that correct? >> It is >> with a new plan. >> Well, it's a continued hearing. >> You didn't file a new application >> with a new plan.
>> Yes. It's a continued hearing. Okay. >> Because we were we were listening to the comments of the board. They were not you were not receptive to a three lot configuration with a fourth lot being a homeowners association. And uh so we went back to the drawing
board for to simplify. We now propose uh for this over twoacre site a a two lot uh subdivision with a road um that we are prepared to dedicate to the public use. Um
and the uh both of the lots >> meet or exceed the uh lot requirements. There is one bulk variance with regard to the front lot. Uh outside of that, we meet or exceed the the zoning
requirements. So for this 2acre site, we propose two single family residences. Um we are seeking and and Mr. Hopsman will deal with the RSIs issues regarding the
uh road. Uh we're prepared to dedicate the road to the public use. Uh if the board is would like to have the maintenance or some other maintenance issues relating to our application handled by the property
owners, we're prepared to have those be part of a covenant that would run with the land and be monitored. Um and so uh hopefully uh with with one single variance, two lots um we think
that it's a a very good use for this site. Um and um and the highest and best use in in consistent with the zoning and Yes. >> Okay.
>> Uh we're going to present uh Mr. Hubsman who who hopefully I know he got a a list of uh engineering concerns which he's going to go over Sirium during his testimony. >> Okay. We have uh this evening also the architect and the proposed uh dwellings
have been produced so that the board can indicate what the visual impact of the development will be and we we have a planner Mr. Matt Flynn to uh uh finish our presentation. >> This hearing was noticed Jen for
December, right? Yes. >> And it was carried to tonight because people were unavailable. I think the objectives attorney was unavailable or unavailable. >> So, an announcement was made at that time not requiring any further notice that the hearing would be tonight
>> and I think that uh Mr. Reagan that you've already reviewed the uh certification of service and uh >> yeah well that was from last month. >> Okay. >> And we have Mr. Stamos maybe wants to put his appearance on the record. >> Hi, good evening Mr. Chairman, members
of the board. Dean Stamos of the law firm of Ferraro and Stamos on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Sagin. They are the owners of 89 Ultipan Road. I did before we start with any testimony. Want to thank the board for u accommodating the
request from the December 10th meeting. Uh again, my letter of December 5th though did raise a question as to the variance relief that's noticed for and I didn't want to just discuss that because I think personally I think it's
incorrect. I believe I remember that >> the they did they notice for a lot width variance uh only and then no bulk variances in relation to the proposed home on the front lot. I think it's
23.01 101. Uh but just to look at you because we had this issue when we dealt with 48 pan road. Um the definition of lot width is the horizontal distance between the side lot
lines measured along the minimum front setback line required for the zone in which the lot is situated. The definition for front yard >> to get I'll read the whole thing is an open unoccupied space on the same lot
with the main building extending the full width of the lot and situated between the street line and the front line of the building projected to the sidelines of the lot. The depth
of the front yard shall be measured between the front line of the building and the street line. Covered porches, whether enclosed or not enclosed, shall be considered as part of the main building and shall not project into the
required front yard. So I read that as the front of the building. >> So you say you're saying you need a re they need a rear yard variance. >> Correct. And it's a lot >> in lie of a sideyard variance. >> Correct. >> Okay. And also it's a lot
>> uh depth variance which should be 175 >> but they do have in the notice >> any other var waiverss variances or approvals that are required. >> That's the catchall. >> Sure. >> Land use attorneys use that all the time. >> I understand. >> I mean it would be different when we're talking to use variance or like some
kind of a Dvariance like a D4 or FAR but it's a book. But we do we do need them to revise on the application what the variances are. >> Well, we're going to have to hear tonight. What are they? Yeah, >> they may differ their opinion. >> Mr. Chairman, the board may have a
different con construction of the ordinance than we have. >> I assume you're going to have your witness testify as to what you think the variances are. If the board's construction is inconsistent with our planners and with our our then we'll provide the uh the necessary proofs for
whatever variances the board deems based upon their construction of the ordinance. >> Okay. >> Uh are necessary but the application is for the for the lots to be in this size for the road to be in this place and for the and for the single family residences
to be as shown on the drawings. >> Fair enough. But but Mr. Mr. Stamos is right. We did come across this just a few months ago, the same issue and and the way he interpreted it is how we interpreted at the time. But let's give your let's give your uh professionals an opportunity to present us.
>> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay. >> Uh so without any further ado, I think I'd like to introduce uh Mr. Hubsman who's already prepared. Um >> I'm going to swear him in even though
you're sworn at the main meeting. took us a long time. >> Is that you swear or affirm that the testimony was given as city? >> Yes, I do. >> For the right to say your full name, please. >> Yes, please. Michael Hubman
26 Washington Avenue in testifying as the engineering or planning. >> Uh engineering. >> Okay. So, we're going to qualify him as as an engineer. I'm going to also swear on our burrow engineer on our borrow plan. I should have done it. You swear off the
testimony to finish up the record reflect to Mr. Spinkers and Mr. >> Thank you. >> Mr. Hson, would you please make a presentation of what the application is about? >> Thank you.
>> You want to mark anything? >> Okay. >> Why don't you mark? >> Yeah. Well, we started with A1. Yeah, >> the last meeting. So, whatever it is, it's day two. >> Day two. >> And um >> however you want to do it. You mark as
many exhibit as you want. I have the preliminary major subdivision with a revision date of 1021. Is that what we're marking? >> Mike, if you could just for the record state the last revision date of what you're marking now in 1021 division two modified to two lot
subdivision. The original plans or presented in May was was for the three lot. >> Okay, we're going to mark that A2. >> Yes. Main Street 23 block 8038,
109 square ft, 150 foot wide, 567. Great. uh property uh that's what some of you were proposing uh a burrow uh a dedicated
right of way at the last hearing. Uh there were a lot of comments on I think we had a 20 foot wide road width and a small culdection and there were a lot of comments on the fire turnaround and on the parking because there isn't really a much street parking in the area. So, we
changed those two items to a 40 uh we have a 42 foot radius uh on the property 28T uh slide road. >> 28 cartwway 28T way. That's correct
on there. Uh I I had uh listed the lot uh what was it the lot width on the corner lot proposed as the variance. I mean typically we take the deeper as the lot depth and then the more narrow part
of the property as the lot width. So that's that's what I did and I named I had listed the lot width as the variance and in this the other case it would be opposite that and there would be a lot depth variance and the width would be okay but the standard practice for me
and maybe our planner will talk about it would be to have the uh the deeper part of the lot and I couldn't find anything in the ordinance that talked about corner lots. Um I I think you said the board had made some sort of uh decision or
>> we had encountered this with an application not too long ago. >> I mean I already called the one variant. Uh it was called the uh this north is down on the map. We called the westerly
sideyard or I'm sorry the westerly uh property the sideyard the 40ft front yard around the property. Uh the rear yard was on its south and that was the I think what Mr. Stamos was talking about. We're proposing the
house is shown on the second sheet but we were proposing to front it on the new road. So something with the house at the front faces uh the road the back of the house would be the rear yard. So then that would just create we have to put a small if you had the house fronting on
the right of way then that would just create a small I think you had about 25 foot deep housing but you know we we would probably change the house then to front on ensemble road you know to get a wider building area
uh we designed the road not 100% in accordance with the RSIS which those are the stand the design standards uh that that that guy road construction uh in New Jersey. So, what do we have here? And I I had the notes on the plan
on the first sheet. Uh note 9 10 uh we designed it as a low inensity minor collector with one parking lane 20 foot wide uh required partway width which we are proposing and it requires a 50ft rideway with we were proposing a
40ft rideway width. So that uh deviation would require a RSIS waiver from the board. >> Explain what the what the significance is of the right of way uh width in the in the regulation. >> Uh you know 50 foot is the standard
rightway with for sidewalks basically. We're not proposing sidewalks on the sidewalk. >> It's only two lots. There's only two lots and there's not uh you know there shouldn't be any school traffic on the road.
>> Uh and also we're proposing uh what was it a 40 uh two footed >> turning radius which is wider than the RSIS waiver of the RS and we need a 30ft car. >> Okay. RSIS. I guess the third waiver was that
it requires 8 feet curve to right away would be six foot curve three waivers and then so that's a you know general configuration for the site plan subdivision is shown on sheet one 25
zone 25,000t minimum required we have 27,659 on corner lot of the roads up the area only kind of a 1 acre lot in the rear 43,000 square ft.
That's sheet one. Sheet two, we show the uh drainage plan house. We got the sewer, drainage, water, everything's available. We're proposing to uh we're proposing a little small
scale uh this is a bio retention basin basically with the outlet and then we added this was different from the last application. We added an outflow pipe uh to connect to the county drain the application in
bay or whatever that was bay. We just had a seated pit with an overflow break was not not a real great way to do it especially for the road creatously. I sent Tom the report today.
It wasn't much different than the original report except you know the areas changed on that. You got that right? Got it. >> So the impervious surface because we made the road bigger. um created possibly more drainage and
and we've accounted for that in our in our plan. Is that correct? >> Right. It's designed typical 210 100year storm >> for the reduction that require 50% reduction in a 2year storm 75% reduction
for the a 10ear storm and the 80% reduction in the peak flow rate on the site. So we're actually much uh I kept the size of the basin the same as it was with the three lot subdivision. So it uh it actually
reduces the uh uh the flow from the site by by a lot more than is required with that design. Uh what else? So this is a uh that basin has a foot or foot of sand on the bottom
and then it's planted. So, it has all kinds of grasses in that that would more than likely have to be maintained by a home. That was one of the comments in Tom's report, but uh maintained by a homeowners association
would want to maintain that. What else? Yeah, the drainage and out of the street to collect more runoff the street that have to be approved by the county. Uh let's see. I mean, it's not there's really not a
lot of grading on the site. We held all the all the existing grades pretty much. There's no uh no cuts or fills except for just the road depth in the basement. If you look at the proposed contours, there really aren't aren't a lot sewer profile. We need a treatment approval
because that would be uh normally maintained by the town extension of the town sewer system. I'm sorry requires that >> is that se a separate exhibit or we're going to make that part of A2
>> right now he's identified it as sheet two of A2 >> okay fine sheet two and that's our uh you know the design plan for the culde-sac road profile uh 1% road which is uh you know minimum
we've gone down to half a percent sheet three. Same thing I guess with A2 just shows details of the basin with the depth planting schedule for the basin. Not a lot of
planning board input I guess but that's the basin has a four bay which collects any sort of leaves or debris. Okay. >> So, is that in the property of the first home? >> Yes, it is.
>> Okay. And then so there's a is there an easement then? >> That would be an easement created, right? Maintain >> to get to the other property though also. >> Well, no, it's connected from the town or I'm sorry, from the road. >> Okay. Okay. I see. >> Right. The houses that that just picks up the road.
>> It's the runoff from the street. >> Run off from the street. Yes. The the houses would be controlled by the seage bins. >> Okay. Gotcha. >> Yeah, we show that. We uh we did some test pits and so was sandy lomy up there. So I think in Tom's report also
he wanted he asked for additional pits which we would do but we did two pits you know right around in that same area and what else? So this shows the details. Uh the
it's the water quality store that stays in the basin. So what is that as we look this down? A water quality storm is like a one-year storm. So it basically treats like 99% of the storms.
Many of the larger storms go through uh the orifice in this overflow. standard detail sheet sheet four which curving details which so forth regular engineering details
of sheet five right we show you there's tree removal on site this is based on the old ordinance though I didn't base it on the new one cuz we I own the plant so probably have to update this but we were proposing uh one two
three four center colonial style lights on the road uh street trees and bumper trees. I would have to update this with a new ordinance. How are the lights in terms of neighboring properties and shielded
shielded the back side rather than they would put them on the property line on the east rather than have them on if you had them on the west side then they would shine you know where the neighbors uh property
running out of hands Right. And then this uh existing conditions plan here. These are just some of the requirements. Uh 500 foot radius drainage map. There is not a lot of drainage facilities in the area. >> Uh we have this tree removal schedule.
>> This shows 26 trees removed. So again, this was the old schedule 36. I I got to update that to the new ordinance. Okay. >> This is sheets uh six conditions plan
shows existing house the cleared areas on site and again the uh your ordinance check and no on on
Mr. document. Let me ask you the existing house >> um in terms of where the other house the new house proposed house would be uh proposed to be located uh
uh where is it the existing house that's there now >> uh shot here >> you can look at the photo on the upper left of that page >> yeah I don't see I overlaid it
You have it over. It's a little in front. You'll send me the questions before. >> Okay. >> Push back a little bit. Is it >> it's an approximately now? Now, now if
you if if you if you called the uh side yard or rear yard as >> what would that do to the zoning envelope on that lot? >> Well, again, it would change it from 10 ft side yard
>> 40 >> 40. >> What area? >> 40, right? Then the house would have to only be about 26 ft uh deep >> the entire house, >> right? The h if it was fronted then if
we turned it facing the other way and could be the same uh width. >> But then >> I think we need to have it clear as to what you're proposing. >> Yes. >> Because I'm missing something here. But maybe I'm >> We were proposing these two houses.
>> Okay. >> All right. But but Mr. Stamos and his client has has indicated that there might be some issues with polling. >> Yeah. >> Mr. Abrams, what I'd like to do is when when Mr. Hubsman's done, I'm going to
ask our two professionals. Obviously, they're going to do their their comments, but I'd like them both to weigh in on on this issue. Again, it's happened here before just a few months ago, and we'd like to put this to bed, and if there's any revisions to the drawings, then that could be done. Why
don't we wait for the board questions or not? >> We pulled that aside question. >> Anything else? >> I mean, I'm not I'm done with the engineering board, unless there are any questions. >> Well, I want to ask you, you you got a list of uh comments from the board from
the board engineer. >> Well, we're going to have to mark that if we're going to refer to it. >> And we'll mark that A3. No, it's not going to be it's going to be a board exhibit. >> Mr. Scrabble, right? >> Yeah. >> Yeah, it's quite >> Yeah, it should be a board exhibit.
>> Okay, that's fine. >> B3. >> Okay. Uh Mr. Huffman, would you can you respond to the comments that were made? Uh >> yes. I don't to go through all the comments. >> Yeah, I think it would be good.
>> All right. Uh comment one, the applicant is proposing to subdivide the lot into two proposed lots with one lot with various sharing. That's item one, which yes, that's our proposal. Uh item two, the applicants are proposing a 28 foot wide uh
wide road with the stack and a dedicated rightway 40ft rightway. Could you clarify what the road type you were using? And we did have that on the drawing where you were using it the low inensity minor collector with
one parking delay. No sidewalk. Where was that? The applicant should clarify that they are intending the right of way and road to be dedicated. Uh yes, that's correct. We are good. This proposal the lot depth measured perpendicular to the lot width.
This appears to remain compliant agreement four five. We defer to the burough planner to confirm that the yard designations are correct and that was I guess the discussion that we are going to have and having uh the right of way is immediately
adjacent to the dwelling on number 89 to the left or to the east. Uh but we we're not there's a 4ft strip that we becomes part of lot 2302. So we're really not uh Jason he's talking about
that we're creating a sideyard and that's it's more of a legal and planning issue. It's a major development under D storm water rags which I'm sure everyone's familiar with now uh because we're editing more than a quarter acre impervious and we're disturbing more
than an acre. So we have to provide uh green infrastructure which we are with the uh bio retention basin. Oh, let's see. Let's see see item seven about the maintenance which we would have an
easement for homeowners association which can work but it's probably somewhat helpful. That's just later. Uh the storm water management item made I didn't send it. I don't uh you know I guess Tom has to really review that then I just send it to him today because
pretty my opinion. >> Uh >> what was that? What was that list item that has to be reviewed? Oh, the uh the drainage report. >> Had that been provided to the board? >> I provided it to Tom. No, not yet.
>> If it's going to be an applicant exhibit, it'll need to be provided. >> Okay. Blah blah. That was eight. Uh the site distance road should be shown, which I'll have to show that that author revis county. We just had some preliminary comments from them about the road
widening easement. Uh we didn't make a formal application yet because we want to try to get uh more feedback from the board. Okay. Uh there's no county I'm sorry. This is item 11. There's currently no
county infrastructure drainage on Ultan Road. Um this has historically been an issue with the borrowing residents in the area for driveway planning 15 pipes. Mo replaced the system should be
extended to collect water from the inlets at the end of snow crest court. So that's yeah that was yeah I mean that's a discussion I guess they did notice that there's some sort of
granny pick up like there's a storm on the end of Snow Crest where where that goes. No other I don't know. Well, we'd have to see if we can even reach that, you know, grading wise. So, I don't know.
Uh so that's item 11 12. A whole tree replacement plan should be provided. We're just we're showing street trees and buffer trees and that had to be updated for the um the new ordinance. The roadways is on a
1% grade which is to flatten the culdeac. So we'll we'll take a look at that further. And let's see. Last but not least, item 14. Where is the wall? I think I deleted that.
There's a wall around the basin. That's sort of a the basin is below the grade. So that's like I looked at a townhouse. >> It was an engineered block wall detail on there. I think the detail might have
just stayed. >> I think that was >> using an engineered block wall. The legs are shown shielding number connection is required. Right. That's the treatment approval. And uh item 18, we recommend
that the police buy anywhere. I didn't realize that wasn't receive. Got it. >> Well, in terms of the culac, is it sufficient for for vehicles to give in a little wider than the standard 42t
radius? So, will you be able to comply with the comments of the uh engineer? >> Stay away. >> Yes. >> Oh, okay. >> I did the whole thing. >> All right. We can open it up to the board for questions. >> Yes.
>> Uh Mr. Scrabble, you're up first. I know your questions were just respond to. Are you satisfied with the uh responses? >> No, I've got some some followups. >> Okay. the the 4ft strip is is problematic just from a practical
perspective. The board probably remembers this. We actually had the same situation on Snow Crest right across the street, but that was a 7 to 10 foot wide strip that was planted initially. And because it's so remote from the actual
building site for the dwelling, it was never taken care of. The DPW ended up doing it for 20 years, over 20 years. And luckily, we had a new owner come in who was interested in cleaning
it up and taking care of it. And I think it's been a much better situation since, but you know, that's not something the burrow can control. So, just from a practical standpoint, um the 4ft wide strip I think is a problem. Um, I think it also creates another variance
because you've now got frontage on Old Span Road. You've got 4 foot of frontage for lot 23.02. So that that's a front yard by definition. Um, so you need to take a width at the front yard setback. So they
have a width at the end of the culde-sac which complies, but the width at Old Span Road would only be 4 feet. So, I think that's an additional variance. Um, Mike mentioned the RSIS street hierarchy type that they're going
for. Um, my understanding of how that works is the board has to determine that the waiverss they're requesting are dimminimous. Um, that is solely in the board's control. Um, and for example, if
this board feels that a 40 foot wide rightway versus a 50 is not dimminimous, which would be my opinion, um, now their front yard setback is measured from a point 10t further out. >> Yeah. So, if you combine that with the
other discussion that we're going to have about is it a sideyard or a rear yard, the width of their house is now down to 16 ft or the depth of their house is now down to 16 ft on that lot. So, it becomes essentially unbuildable,
but it's important. Um, the other aspect of the RSIS requirements is the cartway width. Um, based on Mr. Hubsman's testimony, they're they're complying with that, but
my experience with this board has been um and the multiple firemen we have on the board over the years that we need a 30-foot cartway. It's a safety issue. It's not an RSIS issue. It's not a burough standard issue. It it comes down
to public safety. So the 30- foot cartwway I think is important which then to go full circle backs back into that 40 foot rightaway requirement. If you got a 30 foot wide cartway that makes the the argument for a 40ft
rightway even less palatable. Um and last comment on the strip. They're proposing lighting in that 4ft strip. They're proposing their landscape buffer in that 4ft strip. And immediately in front of that is the underground electric serving
both homes. I think that's a problem. Um the lighting I feel pretty strongly about. I mean you can say you're going to shield it, but the home immediately to the east is is going to feel a significant impact from
those lights. Um, even if the shielding is done perfectly, you're still looking out at, you know, a a three-dimensional light area that is immediately adjacent to your property line. So, that that's a
tough one for them. Um, as far as the retention basin goes, I don't have a good answer on this, but I do want to mention it to the board that the applicant is proposing to have that
maintained by a homeowners association. >> Um, we've got two homeowners who most likely are not in the business of maintaining detention basins. That's going to be tough. and a a basin that relies completely on infiltr
infiltration needs to be maintained or it's not going to work right. It's going to become a mosquito haven and then present problems for not only the homeowner people in the in the surrounding neighborhood. Um the other side of that is to dedicate it to the burrow which is not a great option
either. Um and part of this has to do with the DP requiring green infrastructure. Um, I understand the the want for green infrastructure. I do, but from a practical maintenance
standpoint, it's it's just difficult. The burrow would not want to have to maintain that basin either. But I can't imagine that putting it on a homeowner is a good option either. >> And if the homeowners association paid the borrow to do it, would that be
feasible? Is that something? Have you seen that? Uh I I think it can be done. >> Yeah. Coming up with with a real mechanism to do it and Yeah. >> and how it's policed I guess is going to be the hard part. >> Sure. >> What will happen if if you have a
homeowners association, >> maybe not the first year or two, but 10 years down the road, they're going to come to the mayor and council and ask >> Yeah. They're going to say, "We need you to take this over. >> The neighbors down the street in the culde-sac or whatever. You maintain it for them. Why should we have to do it?
We pay taxes to I've heard that all the time. >> But it really has become a an important issue because of the new state regulations. >> Yeah. >> Tom, it's my understanding that in 2026 that >> NJD is requiring maintenance of these
green infrastructure. Is that true? >> Not voluntary. It's required. They're going to have to submit at the end of every year. This applicant has to submit a maintenance plan, >> right, >> with specific items that pertain to the
features that are on this site >> and when they're done after every storm, after every twoin storm, once a year, twice a year, whatever it is. >> Um, and somebody's going to have to implement that >> and policing it becomes a real problem. Also,
>> um, with regard to the off-site drainage, Mike mentioned it briefly. Um, I like the fact that they have an overflow down to Moer. Um the prior submission did not it was just going to overflow into the street over the ground. So this is an improvement as far
as that goes. I think we need to look at it from a capacity standpoint um to make sure that the downstream system can handle it. And Snow Crest Court has been a problem since its inception. Right now at the end of Snow Crest there
are just seepage pits sitting on top of catch basins at the end of the street. one on either side. It takes all the water from the top of the hill on Snow Crest. Um those seage pits get filled up with
dirt, you know, in less than a year. I think the DBW has to go out there and back them out multiple times a year. Um and you know, depending on the weather conditions, it can be like pumping concrete out of a hole in the ground. It gets very difficult to do. So, I think
it's important that this applicant ties those into this system, especially since it's so close. >> Right now, it's not is what you're saying. >> It's not tied into anything right now. And it would be relatively simple. I realize there is an expense associated with it, but relatively simple for this
applicant to if they're going to build an overflow anyway, tie in the two inlets on Snow Crest. >> Mr. Hubsman, do you agree with that recommendation? Uh I mean it's of course it's it's a good recommendation but I think it's a cost issue too. I mean that's a 200 foot
road right and then I don't know about the grade the grade is that is that does the grade work from there to do gravity? >> Yeah I believe they're higher than you >> so I mean we'll look into it. >> Yeah I mean you're basically you're you're connecting the two basins which would be 20 ft and then running it
across another 60. It's it's less than 100t of pipe. I thought the B we had the basins at the end of the >> colite super. >> No, the basins at Old Ben Road. >> Oh, I see. Oh, the two seage pins. >> Oh, right. Right. Yeah.
>> I was I was thinking you're talking about the ones at the end of the >> No, no, that goes out through the village. >> Some kind of easement, right? >> And Tom, you also mentioned about the overflow going to Moser, but it needs to be confirmed that it could handle it. Who does that? Is that our
responsibility or is that the applicant? >> No, the applicant would submit some calculations that we would review and we have >> aerial topography, Mike, if you need it. So, it's really not a huge undertaking, but I think it's important because, you
know, our our drainage infrastructure is is old and you know, capacity is an issue almost everywhere. >> Just a couple more things quickly. Um Mike mentioned the street grade, the 1% grade on the center line of the road is
not a problem. Um the problem becomes when you get to the culde-sac mold, the length that the water has to travel along the gutter gets significantly longer. So now your 1% grade along the center line could be a half a percent or a little more on the curb and that's not
enough. So that was what that comment was based on. The storm water management report, as Mike said, I got that today. I will review it. Um, and last comment is the tree replacement plan. I'm I'm mentioning that we need it, but I'm
also looking for some clarification from the board. I would recommend probably Ed's office do the detailed review on that. Um, but I just want to make sure somebody's doing it. And that's all I have right now. >> That's quite a bit. And that still
doesn't address the yard issue. >> No. Um, did you mind weighing in on that? And certainly Ed as well, if you guys can weigh in on what your thoughts are regarding the yard issue, keeping in mind what we encountered a few months ago. >> Right. I I think the board,
>> and this is my take, I think the board kind of changed its position a little bit based on that last application >> and relied more on the front of the dwelling. What is the what looks like the front of the dwelling? and then the rear would be obviously behind it. In
the past when you had a configuration where there were two fronts, um the applicant has chosen which is the side and which is the rear. Um we've we've done that also on many applications, but I think the most recent application the board kind of
made a change in its stance um where the front is where the house is facing. That's your primary front. So then your your rear is whatever is opposite that, >> right? >> Which would be different than what's on their drawing, unless they want to front
the house on Old Pen Road, but then you're, you know, you're losing significant potential size of the house, >> right? It would just create different dimension dimensional issues. >> Yeah. You would the house could only be, you know, it's a little over 50 foot
wide, I guess, >> right? Now, >> if if Old Span Road was the front, if that's where the house faced and the sideyard that they're showing on the drawing, the west side, remained, then they could fit a 50-ft house
fronting on Ultipan Road. Is that more desirable? I don't know. That's and it's still an interpretation. At the end of the day, our regulations, um, this is a question, it's not a statement. Our regulations say it's a
corner lot. >> It's two front yards and two I don't know what like are they rear yard? I don't even know how that works. >> And it does depend on the configuration. Um the one we looked at recently where
the lots were um there was a frontage literally on an existing culde-sac and that was the only frontage. So the the tough argument there was what's the side? You know, you you right you know in this situation
um you've typically got two fronts, one side, one rear. But if these lot lines flared out and then bent again, you could have two fronts, two sides and a rear or two rears if there was another bend. So it's almost unlimited. It's
hard to to nail it down. Um, you've got to go back to the definitions which they just they're not always your friend. >> No, they're not. Ed, do you have any thoughts on that as well? >> Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, it's an interesting situation where um I did
my own research of the ordinance as well. Um, and I would concur. I think Mr. Hooksman had mentioned whether or not there's any sort of guiding concepts in there. Customarily what you'll see is a definition of rear yard or definition of where a rear yard is when you look at
a corner lot condition. Um unfortunately we don't have that but we do have criteria or references in the ordinance that do help define that this is a corner lot. Effectively it is a corner lot. Um I can absolutely see where the earlier interpretations were that
whichever way the house is facing to the back of that house would be the rear yard. It just seems logical that that's the case just due to the arrangement of the building. Um, and in this situation, going back to the RSIS standards, the applicant has tried has used the 40ft
right ofway and the 4ft offset to avoid another provision in our ordinance that says that you should not have a new road create an adjacent lot into a corner lot condition. >> I was going to ask that question. >> Yeah, that exists in your current ordinance. So they're trying to avoid
that by putting a 4-ft strip in, but I think it creates another issue from not only maintenance and configuration and ownership really who owns that that land because it's uh such a small little linear configuration. So I think it's important to see where we want to go
with regard to that rightway width and its size based upon the emergency services because that will also play into what actually happens to that corner lot as well because all this affects this corner lot condition and what comes to play in this is as Mr.
Zabbo had pointed out in their earlier memos that the board may have earlier copies of is that the master plan talks about flag lock conditions. They're looking to remedy the flag block conditions, but it also talks about subdivisions as well. Subdivisions
should be things that are consistent with the established pattern in the neighborhood. I'm sorry, I have a little bit of a a head cold, so I'll pause once in a while, but um with regard to the rear yard, it would seem in this configuration as what's being proposed that the rear yard is that westerly
property line or that property line that's opposite of the new rightway. So therefore, there should be a 40-foot offset on that side and a front yard condition along the new road as well as a front yard condition from uh Alt Pan Road. What also has been pointed out in
the testimony is that there is a dedication of an easement that's being provided. I believe you've indicated, Mr. Hubsman on the plan that you're addressing the appropriate setbacks from the easement from the rightway easement that's being or the road widening
easement that's being uh provided on your plan. >> So yes, but where are >> Well, that lot is is deep enough where uh I mean I had to move that back another. >> Okay. And then also with regard to that stormwater basin that's being proposed,
is that a walled basin creating the depth that you need? Does that have a wall depth to it? Is there top of wall, bottom wall? >> Right. It's in a pound. The top of wall is basically flush with the with the grave. >> Okay. And how deep would it be? >> It was uh about 4 ft deep maximum.
>> So 4T. So you would need a fence around that >> shown around >> in order to protect it. So that's something that I think the board should consider as well. Um, and then I'd offer as well whether or not that basin should be configured with maybe a sides slope
area um, so that it looks a little more natural or it looks like a more of a landscape feature than such an engineered feature in the landscape. So that's something that the board can discuss as well as far as that provision is concerned whether it should take on a more free form shape let's say for
instance to make it easier to look at uh, compared to just a almost a swimming pool in the front yard. So that's where I would uh be careful about that determination is where we go with that. Um with the applicant when you provided in
your testimony, Mr. Hman, you had asked for there were three waiverss from the RSIS standards. One I had was the rightway itself is 40 ft compared to 50. Is that correct? >> Yes. And then the next one was an 8ft uh space between the curb and the rightway
whereas you have six foot proposed. The third was what? >> Well, I I had we're we're I think we're drawing a 42 foot radius and 40 foot's required. So So we're actually larger on the radius of the >> sidewalk. And then is sidewalk required? >> And the sidewalk.
>> So the sidewalk is really the waiver. So that's okay. >> Okay. Thank you. So there's a number of waiverss that they're asking for from those conditions. And I think that all goes into the board's decision on whether or not, you know, with the variances that are being requested, whether or not there's uh uh this is
number one compatible with the neighborhood or is it is it so problematic it has other issues. That's that's something for the board to discuss. >> We'll need all those waiverss and the revised variances resummarized. Some somebody has to provide that to us because right now what we have doesn't
reflect that. correct >> and the plan is not correct as well because the applicant needs to make a decision. Are they proposing the house in this direction or are they changing it to the direction from the frontage of Altapan Road so that we can understand where the variances actually are as it
relates to that >> prepared to answer that question now Mr. Abson or >> you need to revised the plan? Well, I'm I'm I'm thinking we're going to listen to the to the comments of the board and then we'll see whether or not we can we can meet some of those in a in a in a
redesign of of the of the application. >> Okay. Uh and and we hope that the board will at some point find it favorable to have a two lot residential uh development on this 2acre site
because if if through a combination of uh variances and engineering requirements uh the zoning policy and the zoning ordinance requires one single family
residence on a twoacre site. This is the kind of exclusionary zoning which the courts don't look >> I don't think you want to go there. >> I don't we No, I don't want to go here. That's my point. >> You're going there? >> No, but my point is I don't think so.
>> This is why we're going with this application. >> Every everybody who owns property has a choice. We That was not our choice. >> Well, you didn't file an application. >> You didn't file an objection to the burrow's housing. >> No, no, no. But but but if it may not be
the applicant's choice. So if the applicant you turn this applicant, somebody who sells the property to may have the same idea >> perhaps. Mr. Chairman, there's a few more items. >> Thank you. Um with regard to your tree removal plan, I noticed that there are a
few trees that you're maintaining along the common property line. Is that correct, Mr. Hooksman? >> Along the common property line with lot 28 point I'm sorry if I couldn't remember that lot number. um the adjacent lot to the to the east. Um that is also something that should be taken a
look at with regard to where you're putting your electrical as Mr. Scrabble pointed out a moment ago because there will be a significant amount of root disturbance of those trees as a result. So it's whether or not that electrical can be repositioned on that side. Also, your landscape plan, I know you had
indicated that it has to be modified for the new uh uh tree removal and replacement ordinance, >> but that also in addition you're looking to put in green giant ar not green giant but um emerald green uh arborite. Those are going to be devoured by the deer um
in this in this neighborhood. though that we've really got to take a look at that and it would compromise the effect of that buffer because one of the things that we're looking at here is the effect of the proposed subdivision on adjacent properties and I believe the planting is
in an effort to try to uh address the frontage of that roadway uh to the adjacent property to the east and if the landscaping isn't effective that's something that we have to take a look at as well um on that side. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Other than that, those are your only comments.
>> That's my only comment. Sorry. >> So, before we go through the rest of the board, I do want to uh approach both uh Tom and Ed. If if the two of you could connect and just summarize what your thoughts are regarding the waiverss and the variances, and I understand the variances depend on which way the house
is facing, but if you could provide both conditions for us, that would be helpful. And then I just want to go back to a couple of things that came up when the both of you talked. I want to understand I'm a simple man. I I you know I I I just do this as a volunteer for the town so I don't understand all
this. Um two things. One, there was the commentary about the road being um 50 ft and the cartway being 30 ft. If you >> Yeah, if you could just elaborate on that a little bit so we understand what the actual requirement is.
>> And then my second question is please explain to me how the 4ft strip prevents that from now having Mr. S of Aunian's property be a corner lot. Those two things >> right now. >> Yeah, please.
>> Well, I think it's important that the board needs to understand this. If I don't understand it, it's likely that other people may not understand it. >> I'm going to take the last one first. The 4ft strip. Um, it's it's a way to do it. It's a tool. It's
it's clearly designed to just eliminate that issue. >> And the strip is not directly on the right away. No, the strip would be owned by the the owner of lot 2302. >> So 2302 owns the acre in the back and a
4ft strip along the side of the road. And the only reason that's being done is so that the owner of number 89 >> does not front on a public street, >> right? >> Because if you don't front on a public street, you're not a corner. You're that's not a a >> Is that technically a correct way to do
that? >> It's a way to do it. Um yeah, I I don't it it's clearly a tactic. Um they're they're trying to avoid that situation because otherwise they would be creating nonconformity on somebody who's not
party to the application which they can't do. >> There's no requirement for the width of a property being more than 4T. >> Well, I mean that was one of my comments earlier in that I think it's an additional variance. It's a lot width variance for the frontage along Old Span Road. >> Now I understand that comment. Okay.
>> Yeah. So, it's definitely an extra variance. Um, and it's being done for solely for that purpose. Um, just give me your other questions quickly. >> Was about the 50 foot versus 40 foot. You talked about the so right away >> RSIS for the the particular street type
that they chose, which I don't object to. I think it's probably applicable. But if you want to do that type of street, you need a 50-ft rideway, a 28T cartway, and the 28T cartway um that allows for parking on one side.
That's what that comment is for. Um but you're also required to build sidewalks when you when you choose that particular street. So they basically they're asking for the 28 foot cartway, but they don't want to build the sidewalks and they don't want the wider right of way. Um, I
don't know why the burrow would would accept a narrower rightway. That doesn't serve any purpose other than the applicants. >> Well, the right the the width is of the rightway is more important than the sidewalks, I think. >> Yes. I I have no problem waving the
sidewalk. We're not building sidewalks. It makes no sense. >> But from the from the burrow's perspective, I don't I can't come up with a reason why you would wave the 50oot right away. So, if that's not something that you see as dimminimous as a board, um, you know, that changes this
plan significantly right there because now the rightway is 10 foot wider. They can't push it toward the east because they're up against the property line. It's all going to go into their lot. >> And is that a variance for us to what what is the mechanism for that? Well, it
as the plan exists right now where they're showing the width going east to west or west to east, that variance would get greater because now you have 10 foot less space. Um the width of the house would or the depth of the house
would have to become 10t less because your your front yard is now measured from a different point, >> right? Um, so it it affects what they can do and and and the viability of of that particular lot. >> But the road width falls into the jurisdiction of the planning board,
planning and zoning board. >> Yes. Again, I >> subject to Reese's. >> Bob, maybe you can help me out here. >> RSIS, right? >> My understanding is any anything waiver from RSIS standards, the board has to sign on that it's a dimminimous change,
>> right? Otherwise, you got to you've got to get a variance from the state >> RSIS. >> Well, then that needs to be added to the list that the two of you are going to >> right >> caucus on. And and again, historically, we've never allowed a street less than 30 foot
>> for for emergency services purposes. >> So, right there, you know, we got to go to 30 foot on the street. So, now your argument for a 40ft rideway is even more problematic. So, we need 30 foot cartway. We need 50 foot right away.
That changes what they're asking for. >> Gotcha. That's very helpful. >> Yeah. At least we have a basis. >> All right. Baseline. Let's work our way down. I think Wan, you're next. >> Uh, thank you, chairman. Um, I think we
should start moving Tom and Ed to go last because uh they did a very good job. And >> literally the last thing that you were uh speaking about the 30oot carway and the 50ft rightway was one of my major issues.
>> Um, not only because of the emergency uh services issue, but also we want to stay consistent what's in the burrow. And my other comment that I'm going to make is I just there's a lot going on here and I have to digest a lot of this. I don't like a lot of the burden that it's creating on 89 um Altapan Road and just
reading uh number six in the comments that now it's going to potentially uh that they might need another variance um making their backyard now a front yard. And that's >> yeah, I should clarify that um because
my initial reading of the plan was that their proposed rightaway was right on the property line. >> Okay. >> So that the sideyard of 89 becomes a front. >> Okay. >> Which I thought they didn't have the legal right to do. >> Um but that's where the 4ft strip comes
in. That's how they're avoiding that. >> Right. The 4ft offset. So though from a practical standpoint, it's still a burden on 89, but they don't it's not a varying situation. >> I understand. Yeah, but it's still creating I got >> same burden, >> right? Okay, that's all I have.
>> No, it's those are I think those are the major comments. Thank you, Juan. Tom, >> yeah, I just want to clarify from Mr. Scrabble's uh memo here, you do intend on dedicating the the completed road to the burrow. So it would be burrow
responsibility to maintain this >> uh >> in the future >> we would dedicate it which would mean that the count it actually is the council that has to accept it as a public street >> and we dedicate it to the public use.
>> If the council does not accept it as a public street here >> then then the burden of maintenance would be on the on the applicant and the owner. >> Yeah, they're right on. Uh but that's entirely a council >> any getting involved in other uh deviation relief.
>> That's entirely a council decision as to whether or not they would accept it as public. >> If if it's not a dedicated accepted roadway, you got a section 35. >> I think council and he is very very knowledgeable. >> But we dedicate this guy
>> if if we dedicate it to the public use. It's not a planning board decision as to whether or not it gets accepted as a public street. It's entirely a council decision and section >> and once we dedicate it to the uh as a road then it's a road for and and for
the public use >> and uh whether it gets accepted as a public street or not uh uh those other issues are not involved in my opinion. >> That's not see interesting. Um,
that's all I have. Just want to clarify. >> That was a good That was a good question. >> Um, all my questions were already answered in my dialogue with with my planner and my uh engineer. Um, I'll save my commentary for later,
>> Nick. >> Yeah. Okay. Yeah. All right. Um, I'm not really thrilled about this application with all due respect to Mr. Abrahamson, who I think is a fine attorney. Um, I'd like to ask our professionals,
what is the definition of a flag lot and what do we have in our ordinances that precluded us from being able to >> approve or that we would even be in the position of entertaining this type of application?
>> Our doesn't in definition, we don't have a definition of a flag. >> Yeah. Not specifically. I think we all know it. >> Yeah. Customarily from a >> you can't define it, but you know when you see it. >> From a planning standpoint, if I was to go go to the Moscow development definitions handbook, um you would see a
lot that would have a very narrow front lot uh >> that widens as you go. >> Correct. That widens or or it just runs all the way to the back of the property. And one of the main things that Mr. uh Zabbo pointed out in his review from the earlier reviews was that the master plan
had very strong language regarding that saying that they should really be discouraged because they're inconsistent with the developed pattern in often times from a planning perspective. The other reasons why they're discouraged is not only for the configuration of the lot but also emergency services being
able to know where in fact the house is uh which which is in needing of the emergency service. In addition to that, you then have privacy issues that customarily happen where you have a house behind a house where the frontage of the house or the front portion of the house is overlooking the back.
>> Would you stop only because I wanted to bring that point up again. That was one of my another points, but no, obviously continue. But that was another thing about where you even could put a fence in the back of the property to divide the two houses where the front the back
property looks right into the you know into the backyard of the front property cuz the the width of where the property divides itself is right where the culdeac is. So that's an open space that now has an open view from that whole
property into the back of the other property. But now, I'm sorry I interrupted you cuz you were doing an excellent job in bringing my point. >> Thank you. I was I was actually done, but go ahead. >> Okay. So, I'd like the rest of the board to to really understand exactly what our
our our planner just told us about the discouraging and that it was part of our master plan that we spent a lot of time on many many years ago and then we continue to >> and we're doing it again. >> And we're going to continue to do that. that that there's a discouragement of
that type of uh you know housing uh development. One of the things I was thinking of on that idea of the 4ft uh I guess piece of strip of property that goes all the way up to I guess goes all the way to the street that
establishes a sideyard to the back property. Correct. >> Yep. Would there be a way to mitigate, and I'm just trying to maybe just throw this out there, to put a fence along that same property line all the way down to the back of the
>> back property right on that on that 4ft stripes for the house >> because now I don't know whether our ordinances allow a fence to be built right on a propert, >> right? or or do are we allowed to build a fence? Let's say you they wanted a six
or even they would approve an eight foot fence to divide that so that it doesn't, >> you know, I guess, you know, become a burden for the east easterly property. Could they build a fence that goes straight down that basically separates that property out from this development?
>> This would technically be a fence in the front yard, so you'd be limited to a 4ft high fence. Um, unless this board was to deviate from that >> can't cut them all. >> So, so it would be four 4 foot >> 4 foot >> only. But but a 4 foot up to what? All the way down to the
>> all the way down because it's all within the front yard of the ride ofway that's being proposed. >> But a front yard fence also has to have openings to see through, right? It can't be totally. >> It can't be totally opaque, >> but wouldn't be able to block the house
to the east to be able to to establish an additional buffer >> unless there was a variance for that. >> They would need a variance. And can I just add one thing to that briefly >> because I've had situations where lots ran through from a street to a street
and one of the requirements was, which the board at the time, not this board, thought was a good idea, was to put a fence along the back on one of the streets. So then on on that particular street when you drive in you're you're all you see is this fence >> on the left side moving you would see that
>> it looks really bad >> right but there would be that 4ft buffer that would be grass and or some kind of >> yeah four feet you it's like nothing like the fence is going to be out your out your window >> okay so it wouldn't even be a good option for them >> I don't think
>> even trying to divide it or establishing a thicker buffer than that >> that's a very personal non-engineering opinion but that's I'm not I'm not an engineer. So, uh then the other question I had is if they shifted the the to the front of the
house to pan road. >> It was mentioned that now it would only be maybe a maximum of 50 ft wide. the house would be limited to a certain uh a limit of width >> because the westerly property line would be a sideyard in that situation
>> based on the interpretation of the yards that we have in our ordinance. >> Now would the effect of a wider street have any effect on that as well? >> Yeah. >> And then the 4ft buffer also forces everything to be pushed for further to the west. Right. If the burrow required
the 50- foot rightway, now that house can only be 46 feet wide. >> Okay, that's what was my point. Okay, so but the depth of the house would still be able to be pos potentially 50 ft deep, right? So for instance, if they wanted a
two or three car garage, they would have to build it on the on the street side but not facing Alter Pan Road. It would be on the back, I guess, onto the side of the house or could even be entered from the back. But that's what I'm saying. It would be more of a square
style house, right? >> As long as it still met the the maximum coverage, >> right? Maximum coverage and floor area ratio and whatever else. All right, I think that's all I have for now. >> Before we move Thank you, Mary. Those are great comments. Before we move down,
is it in everybody's best interest starting with the applicant for us to make a decision about the street width? Because otherwise they need to know what dimensions >> the applicant needs to know exactly if he has to. >> And so is this something that the board should quickly caucus on and make a
decision on? >> And I the other issue is are are I think the board is taking the position that whichever way the house fronts >> Yep. >> the opposite side is the rear. There you are. >> Yes. >> Okay. So then yeah the only question is are would you require the 50 foot
rightway and my opinion would be you should. >> Yeah. Now do we need to vote on that? >> No you can just get consensus from the board. >> I mean I I agree with Tom's recommendation. >> It's fair to the applicant. >> I'm sure our fire department members feel that way. >> What does everybody think?
>> Agree. >> I agree. Agree. >> Anybody disagree? >> Hearing none. We we would require the street to be 50. now understand the board's position. Well, and we can go back to the plan. >> Yeah. >> See see what we come up with. Um, and we
would request to be, you know, have the ability to do that, but I don't know if anybody wants to ask Mr. Hudson questions before, you know, before I make that application or should we just >> But he can certainly weigh in on it. he can weigh in on it now or we can finish
the commentary of the board and then >> commentary on the board. >> He can think about it while we're doing that. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Thanks. >> All right, Mr. Boyce. I do appreciate Mr. Hubsman's creative approach to this plan. I uh
>> I know you're trying to work within the parameters and find a way to get this done. And I know Mr. Hubsman personally to be a very creative and good engineer, but I'm just worried that this will impact the way it's currently
configured uh and now possibly with a 50 foot wide road will really impact the neighbors and the current flow of the homes along Old Tapan Road. I think it's a bit inconsistent. Not to get into planning, but um
I agree with our uh planner as well. There were a lot of landscapy type comments in there. I know he's a landscape architect as well and and he was spot on with a lot of the requests for creating the detention pond to be a little bit more naturalistic. The plant
choices are uh not ideal for such a hightraic deer area. And I don't think a 4ft width next to the road will suffice to buffer the adjacent neighbor. So, for those reasons, I think uh I think there's a little bit more work to be done on this
application. >> Thank you, Bill. >> Yeah. And I I I concur with Bill. There needs to be a little bit more work here. My questions were already raised by the engineer and the planner. So, I'm going to pass it along to Bob. So, I have two
comments and I appreciate the planner and Tom for giving us the explanation of how the design appears to be made to circumvent getting additional variances and closing out a
neighbor's concern. I had two other items. One, I don't know why you have lights down. This is aesthetic. We don't really put lights on streets in old Japan. We kind of like the natural light, so I'm not sure why two houses
would require street lights. >> I'm sure he'd agree not to do them if you don't want. >> Yeah, I'm sure he would, too. But I wanted to make that point because as we talked about the possible spillage of lights into the neighboring properties, there's no need for them in our town.
The second item is we talk a lot about we don't talk enough about the master plan but the one item that I kind of looked at when I joined this board as an alternate is one statement in the master plan that says that the housing
development should fit within the property atmosphere the the the collection of houses that exist. You can drive the entire length of Altapan Road and there is no sideyard
sitting facing Ultan Road. Every house is fronted on Old Tapan Road. And making a new house with a sideyard on Old Tapan Road is totally inconsistent with this neighborhood. And so I would strongly
recommend that you review and change your design to front the first house >> next to the school >> facing old Tan Lo Road in meeting all the requirements of the setbacks. >> That's all I have.
Mike, >> where'd you go? >> Oh, Vicken, you're hiding back there. >> No, >> he Oh, you just moved. didn't see you do that. >> Good day.
>> I I agree with everybody's comments and statements and thank you. Very very thoughtful. I I just have a a novice question based on uh what a bio retention um at least as this would be planned what that would look like aesthetically and also is there a depth
to that? Um because this would be something road that people walk their dogs, their kids their bicycles. So if you can kind of illustrate what that would look like, that would be helpful for me understand what that would look like if you're passing by an open. >> Sure. It's uh well you wouldn't it's uh
designed as an impound that uh and I think Mr. Sniggas's comment that you know maybe to redesign it would maybe some more on but it looks like a planted area mostly grasses in that area and we're showing a 4ft fence
around it. Uh it's it's flush with the graves and so it's below you probably road except for the plantings and uh you can add more plantings around it. 50t right away is doable and that does
actually help the neighbor pull the road off and get you have the 4 ft and 10 ft. You have like almost 14 ft to plant and move the electric over. So I mean there were some some good comments. Change the house the front. We need the basin on
this side. Make the uh retention basin a little more uh aesthetically pleasing. I guess what was the good >> Mike? How did you do a draw down time for the water quality storm? >> Uh we did. I don't know. We did that.
>> I think the max you're allowed is 72 hours. >> It's a hydro grant we did for that. So the basin will fill up with water to a certain depth before any water is allowed to go out through a pipe, >> right? >> So then once the storm stops, that water
below the pipe has to go into the ground. So I think it could be wet for up to 72 in these soils. It's probably something better than that. >> Much better. I would think less like an hour probably, but I'll I'll check the >> Yeah. So it's going to stay wet for a period of time after the rain.
>> That's how it's designed. And the idea is that the adjacent lot would also would would this would be large enough so the adjacent lot is not a muddy mess for 72 hours. Is that the idea? >> Say that again. I'm sorry. >> My my question is really would the neighbors lot be affected with this
style design? >> No, it's it's all contained within the impoundment >> within that area >> and you have to do actually they call it a groundwater mounding analysis. So you know where the existing groundwater is based on your soil logs.
Um or there's assumptions you can make if you don't run into water. And then you have this size of basin with this depth of water in it that has to get into the ground. So what is that going to do? It's going to raise the groundwater level for some area around it.
>> And it's it's pretty limited. It's it's feet. So by the time you get to a neighboring property, it's not going to be an issue. But the applicant will have to do that analysis to show that that's not the case. >> How is seven foot? That's what we're saying. >> We we usually have you need a 4ft fence.
It's sort of like a swimming pool requirement, not a pool, but we always have four footing road. >> Yeah. And the the landscape look will be more of a naturalized landscape look. It won't be just turf. It'll be tall
grasses and things like that that have to be planted in there and the reason for that is that it has to address water quality and certain plants can address water quality as a result. >> Interesting. >> Thank you. >> Thanks, Mike. Anything else? >> No, I I think Mr. Boyce um concerned
about the neighbor I would agree with as well. So, >> yeah. question was regarding the extension plan. Is there any other plan that would be available uh is an alternate for this one? Uh can I read what the maintenance requirements
are on this plan? Seems like it's every every month you have to make certain adjustments and checks on cleaning, >> right? Well, the new green
infrastructure, it's all geared towards structures like this where in five years ago, we would just have oversized pipes underground and they would be buried like 36 pipes and detention bas. Uh so now it has to be there's other types but
they're all infiltration bio retention basins like be rain gardens. This is required by the state. >> This is required well by the state regulation but the NJ is we're considered a major project for
storm water because we're we're more than a quarter acre impervious and then we get that cut off. If we were not a major the road is what makes it a major project the two houses. Um if we weren't then we could just you know use regular seat pitch or or
regular detention system. Okay. >> Thank you, John. M petelli. >> All right. >> I did have one additional item if I could. We talked earlier about a
homeowners association. Is based on the existing plans. Is the road the only thing if the town does not take the dedication is that the only thing that would become part of a homeowners association
>> of the bio retention basin as well. >> Okay. And so do we need to understand the town's decision, the board, the burough council's decision before we finalize and approve anything? >> Good question. I don't know the answer to that.
>> I think right now they're proposing that the burrow would take the road, >> but the association would handle the basin. >> But if the burrow doesn't accept the road, then I'm assuming the road then becomes the responsibility of the homeowners association.
Yeah, but I think >> a private road is problematical though. >> If it's built to standards, >> not private >> if it's built to structural standards. >> I have never seen a mayor and council deny a road. >> No, I I haven't either the time. >> So, do we add something to the
resolution that just in case they don't take it, it has to be part of the uh homeowners? >> I think so. >> Yeah, we would. >> Just a question. Does that triggered another variance? >> Yeah. And it it that really complicates it. If that were the case, you wouldn't
want to just cover it with one condition in in a resolution. There would be a >> a lot of conditions just pertaining to the association. >> Yeah, that's >> there may be a developers agreement that has all of these. >> Well, there will be, >> you know, I mean, >> you know, that's typically the
enforcement proceeding. And uh uh in in other in other towns sometimes bonds are are are posted. Um there are there are there are ways to secure uh the performance uh uh of of these of
these obligations. >> Uh Nikki, are you recused or are you technically >> abstaining? >> You're abstaining. Okay. All right. We're we're going to open it up to the public. But before we do that, did you want Mr. Hubsman respond to any of those other comments that were made earlier?
You felt they were responsible. >> We're going to we're going to request uh uh to adjourn the and and >> revise the plan >> and come back and revise the plan in accordance with the comments. >> Can you do it for the February meeting? Any more time? >> I don't Well, that's really up to Mr. Hubman because he
>> Let's Let's do this. Let's Let's get the Let's open the meeting to the public because there may be more commentary. >> Comments may also be helpful. Correct. Yeah. and then we'll have a conversation about what the next steps are. All right. Would somebody like to make a motion to open the meeting to the public
for questions only regarding this testimony and nothing else? >> Question for Mr. >> Yes. >> Nobody wants to make that >> motion. Mike made a motion. Anybody want to second that? >> Bonded. Okay. All in favor?
>> I. >> All right. Does anybody from the public have any questions of Mr. Hubsman or our professionals regarding Mr. Hubsman's testimony >> or their testimony? >> Yes. Yes. >> You know, he's coming back with
>> all Mr. probably don't want to >> brief his name and everything. >> Yeah. He already did. He already on behalf of Mr. and Mr. >> um [ __ ] Again, the board's professionals and the board uh really
kind of touched on a lot of the important issues. Just gonna ask a few questions of Mr. H just to kind of really point out the scale of what's requested here. So, Mr. Hman, if you can >> Were you taking copious notes, Dean? >> Yeah.
>> My terrible handwriting. Um, so just, you know, we we've heard comments here that it's this oversized lot, but we talk about the current width. Uh, the current width is 150 ft, give or take a
little bit, right? >> Yeah. So, you are at 150 ft in the back. Yes. >> Okay. And you're we'll call it Heat. Heat.