prescription is older, but let me know when you're ready. In compliance with the open public meetings law, notification of this meeting has been sent to our official newspapers and other publications circulated in the burrow of old pan and notice has been posted on the bulletin board at Burough Hall. Please note all
meetings are videotaped and posted on the website. Fire exits located at the main entrance of the council chambers and in the rear of the council chambers. Um let's stand and salute the flag. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the
republic for it stands nation with liberty and justice for all. Amen. Mr. Naj here here here Mr. John here
Councilman Mart here Councilman Boyce here here Mr. Salava Mr. Medine here Mr. Adam Mr. Kramer here. All right. Um, he says I
I want to get a recommendation to open the meeting for non-aggenda items. So moved. Second. All in favor? I. Does anybody have anything they want to talk about that is unrelated to items on our agenda?
Seeing none. Motion to post. Second. All in favor? I. All right. Meeting minutes. None. Good. All right. Any new business? We have any on our end? Nothing. Anybody
else have any new business they want to raise? This is going fast. Love it. Any old business? We have a little old business. So, I'll make a quick introduction. This is Andy and Dan from our DPW. Um there's
a plan to add some planting around the new DPW building that we u discussed at the last meeting and this is an effort to uh improve the aesthetics along the road.
So as you can see this is the the plan. Um we have a mix of deciduous and evergreen trees. Um most of the evidence on the back side of the central avenue side and then around the the two sides to to shield the building and then we'll have nice deciduous a mix of uh native
trees um around the edge and then along the front we have um a nice nice ground cover here with some rocks coming through and we also have some viburnum mixed in all along here to bring some nice colors in the spring. Um, and then
we also have a pollinator seed mix. That's this line here on both sides. We figured it's a nice area to do it because we have the community garden rake across the street. So, we'll we'll attract some nice uh pollinator insects. Come here and go over. And this is just
gravel in the backside. Uh cuz we have our retention right here. Just wanted to share this with you guys. I know some questions. And can you remind us the location of that? Sure. That's in the the corner of Central and Chestnut right by the park across from the community garden. Yeah.
Yep. Right there. Nice. All right. What's the plan? If anyone want to see it, I can pass around. If not, that's up to you folks. It's kind of clumsy to Oh, sorry. Yeah.
This is a thoroughly motion to Thanks. consistent with the master plan. Was was that prepared by a landscape architect or Yes, it was. On the agenda that we
we can say that we can make that statement. Yeah. So my wise legal council has advised that the u the proposal is consistent with our master plan. That's what we would need a motion for. Yeah. It's a capital project I guess that the burrow is doing.
Um and simply a a motion to authorize the board secretary to advise the uh mayor and council that the plan is not inconsistent with the master plan. So does every does anybody want to make that motion? Make that motion. Good job. Thank you. splash
wanted to see what he just said. Any second? I can't second. Second. There you go. I'm sorry. I didn't I didn't hear what the motion was. That's okay. That the uh the proposed landscaping um is consistent with the
master plan. All right, we do a roll call. Yes. Okay. Nine memory. Mr. Yes. Mary. Yes. Mr. Ke, yes. Mr. Allessie, yes. Mr. John, yes.
Council Martha. Yes. Council Boyce. Abstain. Mud. Yes. Mr. Bine. Okay. Congratulations. Thanks. I don't think I can do that
myself. It's beautiful though. It's It's And it's well needed. It'll Charles Mr. Yes. Congratulations. All right. What's next? Any You saw me swear. do solemnly swear. I will support the Constitution of the
United States that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of New Jersey and the Constitution of the State of New Jersey that I will bear true faith I will bear true and allegiance and allegiance to the same and to the governments established in the United States
and in this state under the authority of the people under the authority of the people and I will faithfully impartially and justly perform all the duties of the office appointing board member of the buran.
According to the best of my ability according to the best of my ability. So help me God. Congratulations Mike. Thanks for everything you do for the board. Um next on the agenda but financial secretary. So out of budget we've got $700 and out
of escrow $1,313.50. 50 for a total of $2,13.50. Do we have a motion? Motion. Second. All in favor? I. Excellent.
Okay. Um, resolutions. Mr. Chairman, this is one resolution that corrects a typo in a resolution that the board adopted in October. It's a minor change on page three. On page one, paragraph number three. It's condition three on
page seven of the original resolution. That's the floor area of the structure. Floor area of the structure will not exceed 2365. And what was originally there? It had the floor area of the of the addition. Not the addition, it's the structure. Okay. We should do a roll call for this. Yes.
Okay. Mr. Yes. Mary. Yes. Yes. Mr. Yes, Mr. Dunk. Yes, Mr. Yes, Mr. Mr. Yes, Mr. Barian. Yes, Mr. Kramer.
Yes. Congratulations. All right. Next up, we have applications. We have two applications this evening and we are going to reverse the order uh because one of them needs
to be addressed immediately. Um Bob, do you want to explain the situation of uh Mr. Cho block 402 148 Ulta Pan Road and their attorney Mr. Dunn is here. Uh I received an email
late today from Jamestown Olsson attorney that the board has seen before. Um objecting to the form of the notice. Um I had not seen the notice before his uh email. uh he indicated that the uh
applicant did not notice several of the variances that are implicated by the plan including um lot area and there may have been one or two others. Mr. Stamos is here, Mr. Dunn is here. Have you discussed this with Mr. Dunn?
No. Again, uh continuing Dean Stamos for our own Stamos and obtained by Mr. Mr. Mr. Lesarian who are neighbors immediately adjacent neighbors. I did not have a chance to speak to them. Again, I sent you the email admittedly
at 4 p.m. today. I was just finalized this morning. Um, again, I hate to do it with all the people in the crowd, but I do believe the notice is defective for again, it doesn't notice the lot area. Doesn't even state whether it's minor or
major subdivision. Well, that I'm not concerned about that. And I'm more concerned about identifying the variances and the wide area variances. You didn't know about this until today? Honestly. Yeah, certainly. I I received the the email today, the notice late
yesterday, and I was reviewing it today. Otherwise, I certainly would have I mean, I'm here with witnesses, experts, and I'm hearing about this and that the notice was given to the town at 4:30 this afternoon. 4:30 this afternoon. I I was out of my office when I got it.
got home. And and I think the notice provisions of the statute are intended to be uh uh positive in in that the neighbors, people of interest, people that have an interest in the application have appropriate notice of the application
and the substance of the application. Not supposed to be a trap. No, that's I'm not saying it's a trap. What I'm concerned about, Mr. done is that when this plan was originally prepared at April 27th and I think there were several revisions thereafter but
the plan I have it it's clear that a a lot area variance was required um you didn't notice for that. Yeah. Um what were the other ones you didn't notice a lot with? I said correct. Yeah. Matt, we have we have with regard to the light
area variance. It's not specifically noted. However, it is noted with regard to general reference to I don't have the catch all any other variances that may be implicated by the proposal. Yeah. Any other variances that are contained that are determined either by
the board or by uh people that appear before us that appear. No, but you're really supposed to identify to the extent known the variances at the time you file a plans with the board. Yeah. And I mean lot area to me is a big one.
Lot of area here applies to one of the lots 25,000 square feet. And there were car two others that were missed. Well, yeah. I put the this is in my email lot area and I want to mark it up
lot depth but I think they're counting the depth going area should be lot depth as well. Oh yeah, lot depth for uh for lots of how you look, right? Lot 102
because one is one way, one is the other for lot 102 because we're determining one side as the front but then considering the lot depth going in the other. So you're saying there were what about lot width that identif that was identified in
another I believe. Well, that's the existing property has a lot and rear yard. Rear yard was was not identified. No, it was I'm saying the notice. So, he's missing lot area 1.01
keeper and depth for 1.02. Well, again, the notice doesn't specify. No, I know, but I'm looking at the plan. The plan says 102. that needs a lot a lot depth narrative right
looking at the bump there's an existing nonconformity for the width right 101 extreme a little glad I'm not as concerned about subdivided really not
there's there's two things in my experience can you imagine of some 40 years in representing lands that I don't want hanging out there when we start a hearing. One is notice and the second is the composition of the board and the board's professionals. I
assume there's no objection to the composition of the board, Mr. Stler. Correct. No. Or the board's professionals other than one I think I know Mr. Xarion is the um an alternate. Well, he has to he'll have to recuse himself obviously. He's listed in 200 speakers.
Correct. Um, not me, but I'm related to the party, so I still should. Well, then there's two reasons. Okay. Um, that's I don't think we want to start. This is not an easy application.
It's an unusual piece of property and a number of variances implicated. Do you really want to start the hearing and spend a few months and then whichever way the application goes having it possibly wind up down in Hackinack before a superior court judge and that
notice being an issue in their litigation? I certainly don't want to do that. I don't want to put off for a few months and I I don't want to have to deal with the issue later on. There's no question about that. Why don't you renotice for uh March? Yeah, maybe not.
Can you do that? I'm sorry. Go ahead. We notice for March and we'll be putting you on for March hearing. I I I'm sorry, but I just don't want that issue out there. Your position, Mr. Maybe I'm being a little more conservative than some would be.
Yeah. But I don't want you to have your clients spending their money on professionals and the board spending its time as well as the board professionals on an application that 6 months or a year from now winds up accurate because the judge said the notice is I just want to make sure I understand a lot of areas
not so sure about a lot indicating that he had a and I may ask him he had a question about one of the variances whether we need it because we determined like front plage, I think, from the street. Well, you you could say you're noticing
for that variance, but you don't believe it. It's required. Yeah. You make the notice as long as you want it. It's comprehensive. What I'd like to see happen is the two of you collaborate on a notice. Hopefully, you can agree on the notice. Mr. Stambos, can you work with Mr. D?
And can we get that done like in the next week? Because what's the date for the March? March 12th. March 12th. 12th. So he's got to get the notices out before the end of the month. Okay. So I'd like to see that happen.
We're talking Mr. Reagan about uh publication newspaper as well as people within 200 ft. I would have to have it by March 3rd. So can you collaborate within the next week to get this done? I I don't want to have to chase you guys
for it. Okay. So get together, try to agree on the notice. If you can't agree, contact me and the three of us will sit down. I I think you can agree. Yeah, listen. This is not rocket science. I I certainly I never like having objections and object getting a notice
issue, but I think it's true, but we don't have it down the road. And again, it's not fair to the applicant, to the public, or to the board to have that issue hanging out there. Yeah, certainly not. Um and having a judge thinking maybe the way I do and sending it back here
because the notice was defected. It's just my suggestion and my recommendation. Mr. Don, can you live with that? I'm stuck with it. I I agree that's the procedure. We'll try and do that. Okay. I appreciate that. I really do.
And I mean, I know the two of you very well. If you could collaborate on the notice, agree on the language. If you have a problem, get back to me within a week. Okay. I certainly Okay. I don't want this thing hanging out there because it's not fair to everybody. Bob, can I ask you something? because there's there's no denial letter from
the zoning officer. That was really what my comment was was aimed toward just because it's such a weird lot configuration. I'm not worried about that because he's seeking a subdivision. So, I don't think it really is mandatory that they have a denial letter. But procedurally, is that not typical to
have a denial? So, that No, I see applications proceed without a denial. It's it's better to have it, but it doesn't really serve a purpose. They're looking to split the land into two. Watch. They need to come here regardless of denial letter or no letter.
Okay. Okay, guys. You can figure this out, please. Mr. Okay. Thank you very much. Have a good night. Yeah. Did a good job. Why you can't retire? This is why you can't retire.
That's nice. I can't. That's why he does why you can't retire. That's the currents for this archer. Okay. Wiggers, which
Bob, do I have to recuse myself for the wiggers one? No. No, it's not a D variance. Okay. I don't. Now, now I know. Wait, hold on. Hold on. It's a far. Yeah, but it's a far. It's far right. So you have to leave and also
it's barely a type of variance. So they can't I don't know. No, I agree with you. cost money for people. All right, we're about to get started
with the uh 70 Orangeberg Road application. This chairman, this application commit on December 11. Sorry. Bless you. Bless you. Thank you. Hey, Sam.
You want a cup so the dance plants Mr. Stamos uh you may have heard that we just talked about the fact that there's a far variant involved accordingly the class one and class three members have left the uh okay and they're not eligible to
participate very okay good evening Mr. Chairman members of the board Dean Stamos of the law firm of Ferrar Stamos and as was mentioned we were here back in December uh we had the testimony of Mr. Martins, who's our
professional engineer. Obviously, there was some sub substantial talk about drainage concerns with the issues with Orangeberg Road and related kind of downstream, I'll call it, problems with Perry Street. Uh we did uh meet my
clients with uh Mr. Scrabble and our engineer and we revised the plans to provide uh cur a curb along Orangeberg Road uh and some I think uh other storm water management measures that I'll have
uh call up first Mr. Martins to put on the record. Okay, Mr. Martins was previously sworn on the uh December 11th meeting as was our planner and engineer. So, we all remain under oath. Mr. Stamos,
the last exhibit I have is A1. That's correct. Um, I guess this plan is a revised plan with a revision date of January 28th. Yes. You want that lock date, too? Yes, please. And we also, Mr. Regan submitted a
planning exhibit. I don't know if we want to mark that now. Uh, I think we should all have a copy of it. I don't have it. Okay. Yeah. Is it a planner's report? Uh, it's basically photograph. Oh, photograph. Yeah. Yeah. It's like a
That's not a planning. No. Well, it's it's entitled planning exhibits for Okay. Shows the Oh, you want to mark that eighth, right? Yes, please. I don't see a date on this. Is there a date?
Uh, no. I do not believe there's a date on it. Okay. So, guess we can note that it's it's seven pages. Eight. Eight pages. Eight pages. And Mr. Morning was previously qualified
as Yes. Thank you. Okay, Mr. Martins. Uh, so you've revised the drawings that we submitted originally and they are now marked as uh exhibit A2. Again, just confirm the revision date on your plan up there.
Certainly. So, the revision date on the first sheet is January 28th, 2025. The second sheet is an addition sheet set. So sheet the second sheet is entitled plan.
Okay. So the subdivision map is unchanged position is to signify that we add an additional sheet and we did that because of course during the course of the previous um testimony that we gave we understand
that there was some issues when we met with Mr. Fraal and we came up with a plan to not only make some improvements but to address some offsite issues that impacting the neighborhood. So that's on sheet two. So I'm just going to turn the machine too.
So apparently the issue is that there's a significant amount of water that's coming along Orange Brew Road off of the paint that traveling across the applicant's property and onto properties to the rear of the site. So to address
that, we're proposing that construct a curb along the entire frontage of our property and extending all the way uh towards White Avenue to connect to the existing curb located at that intersection. Uh and that will be the county curb 8 in in height and we'll
direct the water, keep it onto the roadway where it belongs to protect it from going across the property again. So that's part one of the improvements that we're proposing. The second part is to capture some of the runoff that's coming off of the existing driveway
surfaces. So, right now there's an existing driveway on uh the right side of the drawing I was going to point you to. It's a pretty significant driveway from Orangeburg Road. It goes almost the entire length of the property towards the rear area where the existing garage is located. And there's no
current drainage improvement situated there. So, what we're going to do is provide catch basin at the end of the driveway. We're also going to have a gravel strip. So basically any sheet flow that's coming from the driveway area will be captured by this trench and the test station. And then we'll then
direct any overflows into a system of seepage pits. We'll have three seage pits situated behind the garage which will then pick up all that water. In addition to that pool and the banning area will also be connected to electricity. So that will provide a significant drainage
improvement and correct the situation that currently has. Okay. Now I know you just said with the curb like we didn't just stop at our property line because we don't want the water going to the neighbor. We're connecting it all the way to the curb
that's towards white or on white to the south. And also the to just confirm I think you testified the last time though that the driveway has excuse me a sufficient crown I think. Right. Yeah. It'll have to be feathered a
little bit because we're putting the curb in there. So drop curve will be a little bit higher couple inches higher than the pavement in that area. So there'll be some feathering of the of the existing cabin. But the idea is to prevent it from crossing over the driveway and coming down the driveway
roadway. So, in your professional opinion, would this these proposed improvements hopefully make a significant improvement to any um water going down from Orangeberg across our client's property to Perry Street?
In my opinion, yes. Okay. All right. And the uh seepage pits and other storm water management measures are sufficient to capture any other runoff as proposed? Yes. Okay.
And I think we covered the rest of Mr. Martin's testimony. I don't know if you want him to kind of maybe as a refresher u discuss the the variances, but we also have a planner as well. So
it's up to the board. Yeah. Why don't you just I guess briefly state again that just kind of the laying out of the existing home and the proposed home. The subdivision map one. Uh so this is a minor subdivision two lot. So Mr.
occupies the current premises. Uh any wishing to subdivide it to build the house with son lot. So the existing house which would be on lot 8.01 of the northerly lot would remain. which is a new structure at some point will be built on the suddenly lot which we
designated as 8.02 and there were some variances uh with this particular application one of them being lot area so the existing lot area is 50,000 ft but we're situated in our in 40 zone which requires a 40,000t lot area so lot
8.01 would be 27,200 ft which is a variance lot 8.02 02 would be 23,434.5 ft which is a variance condition. The lot width requirement is 150 ft. Lot
8.01 would have a frontage or width I'm sorry of 424 ft and lot 8.02 would have lot width of 127.62 ft both requiring grounds. Uh front yard setbacks we have some conformities
current performance that's not related to the subdivision. Uh the side door set back requirement is 20 ft uh based on the subdivision line as we have applied it. The existing setback to the new property line have a setback of 15.2 ft. So that is a variance condition.
Uh improve lot coverage requirement is 30%. The new lot 8.01 would have coverage of 39.04%. So that would be a varianc these are the existing lots about 8.01.
um maximum floor ratio for that same lot the maximum permitted is 0.16 the existing for the new lot would be.18 which again will be variance uh then there's also some accessory building height variance is deemed the existing
structure is 18 ft in height for this maximum so this is existing nonconformity not affected by the sub maximum accessible building area is 400 square ft ft. The structure which is the garage area back here is 1170 ft. So the
existing 20 and then finally the maximum accessory building length is 25 ft and the existing structure is 44.7 ft existing not affected by and just for the new proposed lot we are
stipulating that the home will be within that bu permitted building envelope. Right. Right. So the lot itself has some non-conformatives but stipulating that any proposed structure would conform to your bulk requirements F sets building coverage coverage etc.
Very good. Okay. Thank you. Just question about the F. My notes reflect from our last hearing. There was a question as to whether there was a deduction for the 400 square ft for the garage. We did not deduct the square feet. And I
thought there was testimony that if if the deduction had been calculated, the FAR would be a little below 8.8. It would be.162 if you take the 400 ft deduction. Well, why wouldn't you take that?
It's well the way the order I mean I'm not a bit unclear. So I I took a taking a conservative approach approach. Correct. And I did discuss it with uh Mr. Rush who said he always takes the
400 square foot exclusion but again we're trying to be conservative cuz well what's the what's the f you're seeking 162 or8 is what we have on the I know that I I would think we we should
apply the 400 square foot exemption and have it at 162 I could ask planner do you agree with that John that seems the practice 400 contract. That's the practice of the zoning.
So it should be it should be 162. Otherwise, theoretically, they could get approved for 0.18 whatever have subsequently the zoning officer allow the 400 ft deduction and add it to the
house. Yeah. So I think you're better off giving the deduction now and and saying they're approved for the smaller number, the 162. Yeah. Yeah. Okay, that's fair. Why don't we do that then? So, we'll need that revised. Yeah. And resubmitted.
Just for record. Do you know what? Okay. Just trying to think then what what basically we're slightly over, right? Uh
Yeah, I just want to double check 162. Okay. So then we amend the application for they are.162. Is there testimony is done? Yes. Open it up to the
board and to our professionals Tom. Um as Mark testified to the you know the variances are the same um with the exception of that clarification on the F. Um so that hasn't changed but I think they did a good job on the stormwater management and I think it it's a
regional improvement. It's not just an improvement for this lot. Uh it's an improvement for um as Dean said people downstream on Perry Street. So that is something that's a positive as far as the application goes.
Okay. Nothing else. No Mr. Zo statutoily uh outlined the criteria in the U report. I don't think we mark your report, John. We should probably mark it.
up to that too. Do you mind just giving a quick overview of that John? Of course. Yes. So under Randolph Town Center and Randolph Township, um courts determined that you use a kind of a more relaxed standard almost akin to a var C
variance based on the the um Coventry case. So it we're not looking at this as a D1 where there's particular suitability, reconciliation of the master plan, all of the things special reasons, all of that. So when we look at
this, you can balance what the benefits may be versus what what the detriment may be. So you would look at it that way. I looked at some I looked at the lot patterns in the area and it's a mix. You know, you've got mostly you do have widths that are
comparable to what's being proposed. I think with the reduction in the when once we've settled the F so close to what the the requirement is for the zone coupled with the substantial investment in storm water management I think that
the board can consider those as balancing uh for the consideration of the requested that's the main um the main point you're saying of your report. Yeah, because what that does is it, you know, I always talk about the C2, you know, and it's
the same kind of idea here. General welfare. General welfare, but it has to acrue to the public. You know, it's not just the applicant, and that's what's happening here. You heard Mr. Scrabble talk about it, and we recognize that we need to do something now. Here's a mechanism to fix it.
Okay. Thank you. Anything else? That's it, Tom. Uh, yes. You discussed a uh a catch basin at the end of the driveway with uh going into uh some type of retention system. What what type of uh assurances can we
have that that will be maintained in good working order? So that's obviously the responsibility of the property owner to make sure that the catch basin gets clogged up with debris. He maintains it, he removes it, he keeps it in a functioning system. So
he always responsible, right? If if it does clog up, it wouldn't directly affect his home or anything else. It would affect people down the line on onto uh Perry Street and elsewhere possibly. But that's why we have really a twofold system here. It's not just a
catch basin trench along the entire back side of that driveway. So unlike that whole system the intention is the catch basin and capturing sheet flow and basically that just by way did not include the extra volume in that infiltration trench in my design
calculation. So that's actually an extra benefit and you have more volume than we actually need. Uh and we did oversize it based on the brown standard as well. Okay. And the trench is 3 foot wide which a lot of times they try to get away with something much narrower which is going to be more of a problem maintenance
wise. It's it's pretty robust. So Tom, you would recommend we provide that if it's approved the catch basin, the infiltration trench and the seps be maintained on a regular basis. It's noted on the drawing. You know,
enforcing that in real life is is another story, but it is noted that they're responsible for it. If we need to, we can provide a developers agreement that will include that as well. Okay, Tom. Anything else? No, that's all. Thank you.
Um I really didn't have any any questions other than I just wanted to clarify if we correct the zoning is it six variances and not seven or is it still a variance? It's still a variance. Still a variance. I didn't I didn't register the numbers.
Okay, that's it from me for now. Nick. Okay. Uh the existing home is right now on what's being considered the new lot. Why? Well, they're both two new lots. So, the existing lot, well, the existing house
is on lot 8.01, which is lot, right? But on the uh schedule here, it says new lot 8.01, right? Correct. So, the new lot is really the old lot. No, that Yes.
Okay. I bet lot 8012. Okay. All right. So that Okay, that's that's what it is. I thought that was existing. Okay, thank you. That's why you're here. That's to help me. Uh the
improve lot coverage 39.04. Is that because it has the driveway, the stone garage, and the property itself, the uh f the uh footprint of the house? Is that why it's 39? Yes. So that includes all the existing
improvements and also the future pool and cabana. So John, maybe you could help me with something. If this was a this is a 50,000 square foot, right? Uh 50,000 split into two.
What is the uh on RA 25? What is our uh 25,000? Sorry. I think he's looking for Oh, you're looking for coverage. I can Yeah. What would the coverage be if it was 25? What would that percentage be? It's a good question.
It varies by zone in the schedule. We're talking improve lock coverage or building uh improve lot coverage first. Let's 40. It would be 40%, right? So it would that would the 39
coverage the 39 would comply if it was an R825. I know our our planner just mentioned to me he's going to touch on this subject. So but we can certainly Yeah, if we can calc No, it's fine. I mean, it's Yeah. Yeah. No, I think that number is that's the number
that sticks out to me is the especially when it comes time for people that come in that want to do additional impervious coverage and such such as even myself maybe when I come in and and I don't know to what extent our
board is really uh you know holds people to that particular you know restriction but that's a substantial amount of coverage on a on a lot that's being split into two and on its own. So that my concern is that. So I maybe I'll hear
some something from somebody else from your uh you have a uh a planner. Yes. Okay, good. All right. So then that's that was just the one thing that really jumps out to me. How about you, Mike? You're up.
He didn't call me yet. Call me. My one question is Tom Scrabble. Mhm. Are you okay with this? Drainage wise, I think what they're doing is absolutely an improvement, a
significant improvement. Um, you know, it it speaks to the variance to some extent, but you know, the variances are also um, you know, there's a lot of different things being requested. So, you I don't want to just throw a blanket over all those variances and say they're
doing drainage and it's it's great, right? Um, but is it a mitigating factor? Absolutely. Okay. That that's the balancing that I was referring to earlier. And there's sets of variances on top of the existing board. Right. Yeah.
And one question for you. I'm assuming she flow is just the water that just like runs down everything. Not like a path. It's like correct. So shallow flow over flat surface like a hill. Yeah. Okay.
Did you address shape flow and left lot? Yeah. So the left lot which is what's called the undeveloped lot future future residence son uh that has not been addressed. That will be addressed as part of the
building permit application. Okay. Address soul moving and drainage and water. All right. Thank you. You're welcome. More of the questions. All right. trouble hearing the uh opinions of our uh professionals over there that you
ease my concerns on storm water and uh and John's balancing there. Um, and not being a storm water guy, Tom, when I see these three, what are they, 1200 gallon? How does that equate to like that? That does that capture the rain, the sheet
flow from rainfall that's 1 in, 2 in, 3 in? It's a 2-in rainfall over um the proposed pool and covered patio improvements, the existing driveway. Uh it's it's noted in the upper right
hand corner of the drainage plan sheet two of two. So existing driveway area proposed pool and patio 2 in over that would be like 6700 gallons and they're providing 9700 gallons. So it's about
50% more than than the pool patio and driveway. Okay. And in a European an overall improvement over what exists there today. That's the big thing. Yeah. Um, you know, these design parameters are kind of arbitrary
because they're not required technically to do it because it's all existing except for the pool and patio. Um, but they're doing it so that they can create this benefit. All right. Thank you. And and again, just jumping on with uh Mr. Jung's
comment about maintenance. Uh because we all know we get a couple leaves or some sticks stuck and they can cause great uh great problems. So if there's some sort of operations and maintenance that can go on with that, I know it's noted on the plan, but that's something to keep
uh in the forefront. I guess my biggest thing here is um and I think I understand this. We're taking an existing 50,000 ft lot that conforms. We're cutting it down into two non-conforming lots. Uh I know this has been not in this case but in other
people have brought similar projects to us and um that's always been an issue. Uh taking a conforming lot and making it into two smaller non-conforming lot. So that's what I'm struggling with but perhaps maybe the planner will have some testimony on that later.
Yeah, well said Dave. Thank you. I have no questions. Most of them have been answered already. Thank you. some questions on sheet two. What supplies off the catch basil? Correct.
Detail here. Graphically, yes, there's a 3 ft width and 3 ft. Graphically, the catch basin looks like it's 2 ft by uh I drew in the outside limits of the
basin itself. So, the crate is 2x two, but the structure itself will be approximately 3x4. The other question I have is I don't know what's covered a little bit. You touched on it. Why we don't have a drainage
mitigation on the new law 803. So this plan was was meant to address the existing problem that exist on property northburg road. And as I mentioned before my
testimony uh this is not this is not construction planning. This is just a conceptual footprint. At some point post approval, if the board does decide to approve this application, the applicant would have to present more detailed construction plans which would include
drainage improvements, etc. And I would say that's typical because what happens more often than not, the house you see here and the driveway configuration is not ultimately what gets built. So to
have engineer um you know a full design done now for storm water management that's going to change most likely anyway um just seems to for me to it seems wasteful. So we do it at the soil
disturbance level. When they apply for a soil disturbance permit for the actual house they're going to build, they've got to do storm water management for the house, the driveway, the in any increase in impervious area. So in future say we approve this application, right? Everything will be
in conformance back then based on the resolution. So the draage is will not come to this board, right? There is no variance for that for the vacant lot. Correct. Correct.
But our ordinance is clear. It's a 2in rainfall over the net new impervious area. So it really comes down to the method they want to use. Um the volume is is defined basically by our our other ordinances. Not ordinances this board deals with necessarily, but other
ordinances and down. The 2 in is what in 2 hours, 8 hours? It's a it's a net uh volume. So if you've got a thousand square feet of impervious area that you're adding, 1,000 square feet times 2 in gives you a
volume. So it's it's assuming there's no infiltration. Um it's just a straight volume calculation that you have to store, but the intensity counts, right? I mean, if you have rain, it's getting 3 in in one hour is different than having 3 in
say 24 hours. True. But you have you have like a longer period of time to absorb that water. But that's why we do it the way we do it cuz it's it's conservative in that the volume calculation assumes you get 2
in in a minute. As long as it can get into the system, you've got enough volume to store it. If you get 3 in over 24 hours, that system's never going to get anywhere near full because it's going to infiltrate out 24 hours. I'm more worried about if you
get like a freak storm and you know it's 2 in in one hour is the tree seepage. Yeah. As long as your opening to get into the system, in this case it's a 2x two basin and the stone voids in the
infiltration trench. If that can absorb 2 in in an hour, then everything is going to get to the pits. So, it's going to work. Thank you, Mr. Question. Yes, Mike. I echo Mr. comment for planning.
Thank you, Mr. Kramer. Yeah, I question more to comment on road chance that the county may require additional lift. Um there is a master plan for for all of
the roads in town. Um Mark is showing the curb at 15 feet from center. So, the county should not ask for the curb to be placed any wider than that. They do have to get a county road opening permit in order to install the curb. So,
that would come up then, but based on the county's master plan requirements, that should not happen. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. My concern would be then what's his name? I don't know. Been carrying it four times. you get on
his laptop. Yeah. Yeah. If that's the case, we're gonna have to do a new plan because it does complicate it. You've got to have transitions at either end. How you going to do that? Um you then may you might need more drainage because
you're continuing the crown wider than it currently exists. So that would complicate it a lot, but I don't expect that to happen. We've seen Thank you, Sam. Um I'm all I'm a bit of this but uh for the
uh drainage uh how are you sizing those? So that's again based on the bur's requirement of 2 in storm bed. to capture that volume generated by a two-in storm event over the previous area of the driveway and the future
school and cabana areas. I mean have have any like preparation test? Not at this point but prior to installation the applicant would do that testing and provide the results to the
engineer for the impact. Yes, it could. So if you obviously anticipate or if it's shallow groundwater type of system shallower system spread out a little bit larger but there's obviously plenty of room there where you can accommodate a larger
system if you need actually oversized it based on what your requirements are 50% and then plus the infiltration ratio which is including the storage volume calculations which would have a significant amount as You're good. All right. Thank you.
I have one one more question maybe for our professionals. Of those items that are listed that say to conform, there's maybe 10 15 of them that say to conform. Does that mean that when they do come up
with a proposed building and or project they go to our building department and it must conform correct to every one of those without variance otherwise they have to come back otherwise they come back correct that is correct so they would apply as if it was
conforming correct applying we're assuming that they're going to conform but if they don't that changes what the whole overall application right because then they have to come back for another variant, another variant, multiple variants. Okay. Very good. All right. We're going
to open it up to the public for any questions to the uh engineer make a motion. Second. All in favor? I. Does anybody have any questions for Mr. Martins? Martins or Martin? Martins. Martins.
Seeing none. Motion. Motion close. Second. All in favor. Hi. Okay. Before I call the planner, just in terms of the maintenance, uh I think you all probably know my client is in the excavation and construction business. Certainly will stipulate that they will
regularly maintain and make sure it's operated. It'll be in a resolution. It'll be a developer agreement, but we would need a developer. They're not going to own the property forever. So, a developer agreement carries on to future res. Yes. for for on-site improvements that it will get it will get recorded and any
subsequent uh uh purchases or owners of the property will know the obligation. All right, fair enough. Okay, thanks forever. Our our next witness is uh Mr. Flynn who is our professional planner. Sir, would you raise your right hand? Do
you swear or affirm that this testimonial given this proceeding shall be to the public? I do. For the record, state your full name and spell your last name, please. Matthew Flynn, F L Y NN. Mr. Flynn, can you please provide the board with your educational and
professional background? Sure. Uh, my education comes from Ruckers University. I have my uh masters in planning and public policy. I have my professional planners license in the state of New Jersey as well as my national lensure, which is the AICP license. I have testified before about
15 boards in Bergen County, about a hundred boards uh statewide. However, this is my first time here. So, um I'm excited to present this project or you for yourself. I work for John McDonald Associates. Okay. Okay. Okay.
Mr. Chairman, I think he can be deemed qualified. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Mr. McDonald. What have you reviewed in preparation for tonight's testimony? Mr. Wait, what did I call you? Mr. McDonald. You threw me around. You're You're younger and better
looking. Promotion, too. Um, well, that's a hard name to live up to, but so just before I jump right in, uh, one of the unique conditions of this property that make this sort of a, um, unique, uh, proposal here is that we are
at the confluence of several zoning districts. One of the board members was asking about some of these other residential zones and how we would stack up in comparison to those zones. And so part of my analysis did look at that. Um, which I'll get to in just a moment. But really by virtue of everything that
I looked at, this is something that's going to fit right in with the neighborhood uh neighborhood harmony, the context that we see around us. And I did uh provide some exhibits to that effect just to make that point there. uh as was testified to just very briefly
in terms of variances the D4 the D uh the D4 F variance we're at.162 whereas.16 is the requirement um really that's about 54 square ft over that requirement so a dimminimous uh
deviation in that regard um just to put it into perspective that's less than half a parking space so not noticeable but I'll get to that in a moment in terms of sea relief we heard about uh lot 8.01. That's the home, that's the lot with the existing home on it. Um, we're looking
at lot area, lot width, side setback, and coverage, as well as some existing non-conforming conditions. And then on the other lot, we're just talking about the dimensional requirements since we are looking at a conceptual home that we are saying will comply. Um, and that's
what's shown on the plans is a compliant building. Um, so for that, we're talking about lot area and lot width. So, like I said, I did prepare an exhibit. I think we're on A3 at this point. Um, which is an eight page exhibit
uh with some with an aerial shot on page one and then I took some uh drone photographs um after that. So, just to start the board off with sheet one here, obviously we've highlighted the property in this yellow line here with the dashed line in
the middle to to show where that subdivision line would be taking place. If we look at the surrounding homes, I know that we can't see lot lines yet. I'll have an exhibit that shows that, but really when we look at the two lot widths that are being proposed here and we sort of eyeball what these other
homes are situated on, we see that this is still pretty substantially uh pretty substantial lot width. Uh in general, as the lot stands right now, it is an oversized lot um with excessive width that sort of stands out in the context of the neighborhood. Um, so just to flip
the board to page two. Now we can see where that conceptual home will be situated. One of the nice things about this application is that we can see that that that box that uh proposed home is actually going to block the view of that pool that's existing. So it's a more
typical arrangement obviously to have a pool behind the home as opposed to uh being visible from the street. Um, so that's one of the benefits of this arrangement. What we can also see is that the building to building separation that we've proposed here showing the
conceptual home and the existing home is consistent. If we look right across the street, um we can see a pretty consistent building to building separation in that regard. Um just shifting on to sheet three now, we get a
view of the existing home. Again, it's slightly over in terms of F, but very slightly. Again, 54 square ft. Uh, one of the nice things about this application is that what you see is what you get. So, um, the board can see what that existing home looks like and that's
to remain. Uh, sheet four just shows the the rear of that dwelling. And then sheet five shows the proposed location of the um proposed dwelling on on lot 8.02.
Again, we can see that pool in the back there and the proposed home is going to be situated in front of that. Okay. Yeah. Uh I stand corrected. The pool's actually getting removed. But I think the point here is that again we have substantial lot width as it stands
today. So this does sort of stand out as a as a large opening in the context of the neighborhood that might be atypical when we look at some of the surrounding uh properties. And then sheet six just shows the flip side to that the rear of the property
there. And then sheet seven shows the existing evergreen screening that's to remain. Um so to the extent that we are providing an additional home here there is substantial screening um by way of that those evergreen trees. And then finally,
I wanted to to include this sheet here, which is erroneously uh labeled sheet seven, but this is going to be sheet eight. Um this shows what I was just talking about. We are at the confluence of several zoning districts. Um namely
the RA25 zone right across the street and then the RA10 zone, which is one lot removed. The nice thing about this application is if we were in the RA 10 zone, none of these new variances would be uh needed. Um so the lot width would go away, the lot area, the side
setbacks, the coverage and the F, all of that would be compliant in that R810 zone, which is right there, one lot removed. If we were to look right across the street, um the lot area would still be needed for one of the lots while 8.02, 02, but it would be only a 3,000
square ft deviation. Um, so in that zone, the RA25 zone, um, I believe it's 25 or I had it written down a second ago. I'll get back I'll get back to you on
the exact requirement for that zone, but we would be 3,000 square feet over the requirement in that zone. I mean, under the requirement. uh lot width would be needed for lot 8.01 in the RA25 zone, but that would only be for one foot. Again, the side setback, the lot
coverage, and the F would all be compliant for both lots in that RA25 zone. The reason that's important is because of the proximity of these two zones. If you were driving or walking uh up Orangeberg Road, you would be you
would have uh the influence of all these other properties happening here. Um so we wouldn't stand out in that regard since these are compliant conditions um elsewhere in the immediate area. So with that being said, I think I'll
just go into the statutory criteria for the D4 variants. Again, it's a very dimminimous variance for that 54 square ft. But in terms of the positive criteria, we look to the municipal land use law in terms of the benefits, um the purposes of zoning. I think we can look to purpose A, promotion of the general
welfare. All of that testimony about the improved drainage and storm water management. Um providing an additional uh housing option to meet demand. Purpose G variety of uses in appropriate locations. Again, we do have compatibility here from an aesthetic
standpoint. If you are in the immediate area, there are several homes that are actually uh very similar in terms of some of these bulk requirements. What was the other purpose? A and what did you say? G A G. Uh purpose I desirable visual environment. again in terms of
aesthetics in terms of that building to building separation I believe is consistent there. Um and also if we go back to sheet eight that zoning map we can see that there is a substantial variety in terms of lot width lot area
and general shape of all of the lots in the in this area here especially in the RA40 zone. Um if we look two lots to the north there, we're looking at a lot that's 100 feet in width um in the same zone. Um so really the fact that we do
have that nice variety here, we're not breaking up an established pattern in that regard. Purpose M efficient use of land. Again, the sea relief that we're requesting here would be virtually uh non-existent if we were just 100 ft away
in either of those two zones. Um, so really not proposing something that's going to stand out as being overdeveloped or excessive in the context of the neighborhood. The flip side to that is the negative criteria. No substantial detriment to
the public or to the zone. Um, again, in terms of public impacts, this is an F that is compliant. Um, even that 18 that we were originally requesting would again be compliant in both of those zones that are right there in the public eye. Um, so I would say that these are
not necessarily oversized homes, but really the relief is relative to undersized lots in the context of that RA40 zone. Since I'm on negative criteria, I'll just talk about the master plan for a moment here. Um, the master plan has a
goal to preserve open spaces and I would say that infield development such as this reduces the need to sprawl outward develop further into um undeveloped land. So infield development like this is a is a better option from a planning standpoint.
The master plan also states that there's no significant land available for future development in this particular RA40 zone and that subdivisions of oversized lots would be the only suitable option for additional development. So obviously again we're talking about an oversized
lot in the RA40 zone accommodating additional housing where really there's um very few options. um elsewhere in this zone. So I think all of that goes towards the D4 variant. As Mr. Zbo mentioned, it's a simple balancing test. I think the benefits substantially outweigh any
detriments in terms of compatibility, aesthetics, um light air, open space. It's really something that's going to fit in with the established um pattern in the neighborhood. In terms of the C relief, I think we can look to the C2 balancing test. Again a
simple uh balancing test where the positives outweigh the the negatives. Here all those project benefits that I went through for the Dvarian carry forth. All the C relief is necessary to effectuate this beneficial project. Um in terms of the negative criteria like I
said what area what width those dimensional okay good yeah okay um so I was just on the C variances I talked about the benefits basically the same as the E variance in terms of negatives. Uh dimensionally,
these are lots that would conform right across the street, one lot to the south or two lots to the south. Um in terms of side setback, we have nice compatibility in terms of the separation between buildings. Um again, if we compare what we see on sheet two of my exhibit with
some of the uh separation that we see throughout the neighborhood, namely right across the street, I think we're going to match up pretty nicely with those two homes there. In terms of lot coverage, I know that was one of the concerns of of one of the board members. I would say that the fact
that this is a permitted coverage in both of those zones speaks to the fact that it's not necessarily an egregious amount of coverage. If it were, it wouldn't be permitted um anywhere, especially right there um across the street. Um, so I think in terms of
compatibility, in terms of um just general uh welfare, this is not something that's going to stand out as um being excessive development. Um so really with that, I think this is an appropriate application. Again, we have to look at everything that's
happening around us. And I think when we do that, we can see that what we're proposing here is sort of a transitional lot that blends in a lot of the requirements that we see um right around the corner there. So, uh with that, I think aesthetics, safety, efficiency,
the storm water, all of that rolled into this application, this is going to uh be a benefit to the to the community. It's not going to stand out, but rather it's going to fit right in. So, with that, I think uh I'll rest. Okay. And in terms
of lot coverage, usually lot coverage the concern is, you know, impervious surface and how was that handled? And obviously you heard the testimony of Mr. Martins. You think that ameliates that concern from a land use standpoint?
Absolutely. Yeah. And just to remind the board that coverage variant is for the existing the uh the property with the existing dwelling on it. And we just heard that the storm water is going to mitigate specifically for that lot. And obviously with this proposal, we
would be subdividing the lot and putting another just a single family home on the new 8.02. Correct. Correct. So that would kind of negate a situation where you have an oversized
lot that can potentially have a denser, more intense use by a future developer. Absolutely. Yeah. Considering the the lot dimensions existing, you could hypothetically in the future have a much larger home that would stand out in the
context of um these other homes or possibly a multifamily development. Correct. This would ensure two single family homes come in. Correct. And I think to that point when we look at the existing lot, what I said about
the substantial lot with existing really the undersized nature of the proposed uh the proposed lot is a function of that trapezoidal condition that we have on the southern um of that 8.02. Uh so really it doesn't stand out as
being an undersized lot from the road since we can't see that um that slanted line so to speak. I mean again I won't have you recite them but on the tax map you see several other lots with similar frontage and lot
size surrounding the area. Correct. Yeah. And actually our frontage is I think 146 ft whereas we need 150 ft. But based on the zoning definition we have to look at the um I think where this where the front setback is
which brings us down to that uh condition that we're requesting relief from. Anything else? Uh no that's our planning testimony. All right Mr. Just one comment. I I I know we discussed this last time, but I don't
know that we resolved it necessarily. I believe that you're including the attic space in your F because it is over that 7 foot height. No, that was a different You need to come.
No, that was a five parker place. That was five. We all want to get over that. We all want to get over that. That's not That's not an issue here. No. Okay, that's all I have. Thank you. Thank you. Um, chairman, members of the board, you've
heard the testimony. I take no exception to it because factually he's presented his case and for the board now to determine whether or not this fits in there. I do agree that it's a an interesting situation where you have the convergence of three zones. This is right at the corner. Also, you know, you
have to look at the fact that the house that's being proposed, the house that's being proposed on the proposed lot can comply with the yard requirements, which is a big factor for me because you you at least can fit in within the the intent of itself. So, I I I I think that
uh there's some considerations here for the board to weigh the benefits versus, you know, added because you do have a mix of lots here. And and there was a statement that Mr. Flynn made and I'm going to I don't want to use the word bastardized so I won't say that um what was said but something
about the effect about um the infill um is better it's better to infill than it is to spread out. Do you agree with that statement? Well, when you infill you're you're using land resources that are available to you. You're not you're not sprawling. I think you were talking I mean that's
really what we're talking about and I'm not sure that's relevant here. I mean, we're not sprawling and I'm not sure this is infill. This is a subdivision of property. Okay. That's why I asked just it's an argument. It's not the strongest part.
Okay. All right. Anything else? Huh? I have no questions. The only other question I had was um and Mr. Flynn, you may not know the answer to this. Um so on the drawing eight
um it shows uh the RA40 spreading to White Avenue and and Mr. Stanos mentioned this briefly a moment ago. There are a whole bunch of properties on White Avenue in the RA40 that clearly look like they're less than 40,000 square ft. Is that
is that correct or want to go to the tax? Yeah. Or is that just a mistake? because I don't remember any of them coming before this board. Pretty excited to negative question. The question is whether those lots are unders sized.
Well, they're clearly undersized. I just wanted to make sure that it's are we showing it properly and and am I am I reading it properly? They all look like they're unders sized. Yeah, his uh the engineers zone map is consistent with what I'm showing, which
is from the municipal website. Okay. So, there's got to be seven definitely seven properties that are all under 40,000 square feet adjacent to and around the corner from that property. Okay.
Right. All right. I reserve the right to ask more questions later, but that's that was definitely the point I was whispering to Mike about the same thing. uh that there are substantial properties that are much smaller, even half of the
size of the ones that you want to split. Um I can go back to that calculations that you're making if it was an RA25 and how it complies, but I can't do math as fast as you can when it comes to that kind of stuff. So, I'll take your word
for it. Uh, I don't see any objectors here in the audience. And that's normally what I also have a concern about when other people that live nearby might be objecting to the, you know,
splitting of a property and building of another home and such. So, uh, unless, uh, I see a new crowd roll in, I don't see that, uh, becoming an issue. Um, other than that, that 39% number still
bothers me, but I'm going to let that go. Did you get that question answered, by the way? I don't know. I You mean the the 39% becoming a If it was an R25, if it was an R25, I think they just tried to address that to me, I think, specifically.
Yeah. just I I don't know if I skimmed past it, but in the in the in the zone across the street, the RA25cc zone, we would be allowed to go up to 40%. Right. I think that's what our someone on our board I think uh John told us.
The other the other one question I had was the 18% floor area ratio 18 is that say 16% and then it goes it goes to 18% 18% based on the garage but now we're 16.2%.
Okay. So it goes does that say 16 or 18? No, it says 18, but we we used we were more conservative when we were when we prepared the plan and when I discussed it with uh Bob Rush and our discussion here that we were allowed that 400 square foot
exclusion. Is that relative to the size of the property or it's relative to the original to the original 50,000 square? Good question. No, it's relative to the new lot size. The new lot size. Yeah. you under this new lot size of 20 I think
we're about 27 27,280 we would be just 2% over. So are all the statistics in that column relative to the new lot size? Yes, that's what I was Yeah. I because I
can't do that kind of math as fast as you guys could. You just do math for a living. I know, but I'm not working with you. Just I'm off tonight when it comes to working with numbers. I'm just talking in theory now. There you go. Mike, you're up.
And if as long as Charlie says Mike is Mike, he can go next. Yes, I have no questions. No questions. No questions here. I have a commentary not a question that
new lot which is 802 will blend in with the properties across the street and the properties south of as a matter of fact there's two or three properties on white air and they're they're going to be smaller the new
I think this is I agree with you my only concern. Thanks Mike. No comments. All right, we have to open the meeting to the public for any questions to Mr. Flynn. Anybody want to make a recommendation? Mike motion.
All in favor? I. Anybody from the public have any questions for Mr. Flynn regarding his testimony? Seeing none, motion. In favor? I. I. Great. All righty, Mr. Stamos. That is
that that concludes our direct testimony. Okay. So just kind of concluding statements just for a brief just very briefly. Obviously uh a lot as you've heard is a oversized lot and uh as we're proposed to subdivide it uh again it's our
position it's it's in keeping with the character and nature of the neighborhood as mentioned across the street and even the three lots to the south that would border that property. it would still be larger than those lots. Um, and again,
you would think it'd be beneficial to have ensure that just another single family home goes in there rather than a possible other development in the future. But again, my client looks to subdivide and hopefully have one of his kids reside there. And obviously,
they've been in town for God, 40 years, so they'd like to remain and have a family there. So I think in terms of all the testimony you heard uh we believe it's appropriate for the board to grant uh the variances requested along with the subdivision
right and as Mr. Reagan had said they're not going to own it forever but yeah understood the point and you understand that there were some mixed questions from from the board members in terms of it's a significant uh reduction in F.
So, I have to uh abstain on this because I didn't I wasn't at the December 11th meeting. I didn't listen to the recordings. So, does anybody want to make a motion? Just let me explain first, Mr. Chairman. Yeah. Seven members can vote on this because
it's a D4 F variance. Only seven members may vote and you know who the seven are. Okay. Five affirmative votes are needed to approve the application. I make a motion we approve
with any stipulations regarding the the drainage to be maintained maintained and uh developers agreement and so forth as stipulated in the testimony. Okay. Anybody second that?
I'll second it. All right. Roll call. We need a call following the board. Mr. Mary. Yes. Mr. You know, I I would normally vote against this, but I think your planners and your your engineer did a good job and supported by our professionals and
the fact that there's nobody here uh in opposition. I think I'm going to go against my own grain here for this. Me, too, really. Mr. Ley, I'm just going to say yes. Mr. Dunk, yes. Yes. Mr.
Dean, yes. Mr. Kramer, yes. The applications approved. Congratulations. Subject to developers agreement and other resolution at the March meeting, I think. Very good. Thank you so much. Thank you everyone.
March 12th. Please resolve that. Yeah. Yeah. No, I will. I'm sorry to bring it up so late. I usually never do objections. I kind of felt bad about that, but you
know what it is. Do it right. Be honest with you. Do we know if the u Yeah. Well, actually, I want to just cover two other items and then we'll open the meeting to the public. I'll have to read a resolution.
Yeah. So, before we do that, just two guys, the meeting's not over and then we're going to go into closed meeting um regarding a litigation issue. Just two things we didn't talk about during the u communications and old business. One is
John, can you provide any update on where we are with the master plan and the affordable housing update? All data has been gathered. We analyze the affordable housing obligation and certified to a number. I have all that.
What I'm going what I'm doing now I got hit with the tsunami of all the housing bet you did my everybody wanted to challenge the numbers so we spent a lot of time in the firm you know looking over all the DCA information make sure they were accurate
we did that also for uh both the pen interesting enough uh the ECA included a lot of land that should never been of course to generate the the respect that need for the bureau. So, the bureau's
certified a number. So, now I'm going to coate the information. I just have to piece it together. We're going to get together as a committee. I have a a schedule that I'm working on. I I've already backed out uh what we need to do from the adoption process. I just need
to get some final answers from the committee. I'll be reaching out to let everybody know, you know, here are some dates. What was our number 160 from the DCA? Uh they had a very higher much higher. I think it was higher than that.
What did you knock it down to? 121. 122. I think we're over 200. Almost there. Going to the airports. Here we go. put you on the spot. I can look it in my I have it in my office.
I was curious about the number two. I have it. Okay. So, what we what we what the burrow has certified to was um we we reduce the the land capacity factor. There's three factors that go into this. That's really the
only one that you can and that's really the only one you can um you can get to too. So by all by analyzing the properties that they included we we dropped DCA had 23.85 acres of developable land. I got it to zero
only because they paid in they were picking up you know the shoreline they were gone all kinds of areas and we justified the numbers. They're going to explain the process. So okay. So the obligation for the
prospective need is 121. That's what the our resolution accepts 12 and that's in addition to what we had in the past or that's total that's fourth round. That's your total obligation. Okay. Very good. You know what I can do? I will I will
circulate the DCA analysis. That way you all on the same page. I should I should have thought of that and I or if I recall the deadline was the end of February January 31st. Well March February. Okay. So we're not in a rush to meet if we can't meet in February.
Yeah. I think the schedule's going to stretch it into March, but we have time. All right. So we have to do the housing element fair share plan by the end of June. So what what's what's what's good about this is the we're going to the re the re-examination. We're going to have also the housing
element done. We could have one public hearing for both simultaneously. That's good. And we're going to probably throw in a land use element amendment. We'll do it all in one swoop. Okay. And that way we don't have to have multiple hearings. Uh you might want to interject maybe a work session or a public session just to go over what
where we are with this priority. Not at one of these meetings. You're thinking not at one of these meetings. Oh, you could. Yeah. Okay. I'm just saying we should at some point and the committee will discuss it. We can have a discussion about that. We have a light schedule going forward. Maybe we'll do that. Okay, I'll I'll I'll send this to the board
secretary and we'll have I'll just give it to Thanks, John. And then one other thing I just wanted to make a statement. Um I didn't get the opportunity to do it before. Um when we saw the plantings around the DPW building, two things. One, I want to apologize to Mr. Lazarian for missing
him during the voting. So I apologize for that. And I want to thank Mr. Kramer for bringing this to our attention last month and and the quick uh reaction of the town or the burrow responding to that and they came up with a nice solution. So, thank you. All right. Um
we're going to open the meeting to the public for any non-aggenda items and then we're going to close the meeting. Is there anybody in the here? I know there's nobody here. Is that make a recommendation to make a motion we open for non-aggenda
items? Second. All in favor? I. Seeing nobody, make a motion. Close. Second. All in favor? I Okay, we're going I need to read a close session resolution before we close this meeting. Yeah. Okay. Well, no, I can read it. You can close
the public portion of the meeting and go on to We're going to close the public portion of the meeting recommendation. Okay. And I'll read the resolution. Where's the open public meetings act and JSA 10:4-12 allows a public body to go into close session during a public meeting? which the planning board deems
it necessary to go to close session on February 12th to discuss an item relating relating to litigation. Now therefore be resolved that the uh public is excluded from a portion of meeting during which time the that item will be discussed. It is further resolved that
the discussion conducted in close session will be disclosed to the public upon conclusion of the item or when determined that the burough's interest or the board's interest will not be adversely affected. We need a motion to second. Motion second. All in favor?
All in favor? I Okay, so we don't have to do anything. Sorry. Yeah. Motion to close the close session. Anybody second that? Second.