You are on record. >> Good. The meeting of the town of Porpony Troy Hills Planning Board for Monday, November 3rd, 2025, the hour of 7:30 p.m. having arrived and passed. Uh
announcement is made that adequate notice of this meeting has been given and that it is being conducted in accordance with NJSA 104-6 at SEC of the New Jersey Open Public Meetings Act. >> Or would you call the role please? >> Mr. Diddite here. >> Mr. Dpiro
>> here. >> Councilwoman Hernandez >> here. Mr. Math >> present. >> Chairman Denmore here. >> We have our board planner, Miss Winter. Our board engineer, Mr. Caniano, and our board attorney, Miss Diamond. All right, let's stand for the pledge of allegiance, please.
>> I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> All right, this meeting is open to the
general public. Is there anyone here who wishes to bring something to our attention that is not on our agenda tonight? Hearing and seeing nothing. Uh we move on to a resolutions. Uh we have resolution application number
25. This is is this the minor site plan? So Gordon. >> Mhm. >> Okay. Um can I have a motion to accept to accept uh application number 25503?
>> Yep. Uh motion to approve application number 25 colon 503 Colonial Heights 300 Parcipony Road block 388 lot 1 minor site plan for amenity improvements >> second math >> did each
>> yes >> math >> yes >> all right next we have application number 2510 grquisition LLC 169 Lacawana Avenue do I have a motion to approve move
>> and and >> there were a couple revisions just to clarify that multiple tenants could be possible at the >> property. This is um for 169 Lock Lacawana that the warehouse building. >> Yes. Um, some clarification, just a
mistake in one of the square footages that I listed and then clarification regarding the replacement trees in the wooded areas, but nothing substantive. >> Okay. So, do I have a motion,
>> Mr. Chairman? >> Mr. each. A motion to approve application number 25 col 510 gr acquisition LLC 169 Takawan Avenue block 136 lots 33 zone SED-5A
preliminary and final major site plan with major soil moving permit for construction of a warehouse. >> Do I have as per the conditions laid out by that? >> Good. Do I have a second? >> Second, Hernandez. >> Very good. Nor, would you call the role, please? >> Bidd, >> yes.
>> Yes. >> Hernandez, yes. Math, >> yes. >> Nor, >> yes. All right, we move on. Now we have on our agenda tonight application number 24 col 527
Sher Shaw 76 Alexander Avenue lot 393 lot 20 zone R3 preliminary and final major subdivision with C variance with major soil moving permit for a two lot subdivision with a culde-sac right of
way extension. >> Good evening Mr. Chairman attorney Rose Stone Gower with the law firm of life here coming on behalf of the applicant Mr. Shaw again here on what has been now amended and revised to be a minor subdivision
um for the property known as lot 393 lot 206 Alexander Avenue. the board members and uh professionals should all have the updated revised revision plans that were dated October 16th, 2025, which were
prepared by Mr. Miola. Um if I may just give a quick summary, um we were here in front of the board back on September 22nd, 2025 uh with that major subdivision application with the culdeac as Mr.
Chair indicated. And upon hearing comments of the different board members and professionals, it was suggested that we revise the application to eliminate that culde-sac and to instead have it as a minor subdivision that would create
one new variance and would change the two variances that we were seeking previously as to minimum lot width. Um minimum lot width that is required is 100 ft for both lots. Previously we had 93.5 ft and we had 89.1 ft. Currently
with the new minor subdivision plan we have eliminated the culac and both lots need 60 ft for minimum lot width. And then we picked up one new variance for minimum lot frontage which is just for proposed lot 20.02
where 66 ft is required and we have 50 ft. Previously, no variances were needed. We were at 140.59 ft on proposed lot 20.01 and we were at 153.77
ft because again of that culdeac for what would be proposed lot 20.02. At the previous hearing, um there were many um conversations that happened that we had already agreed to stipulate to if the board were to act faithfully on the
application. Just to recap, it was that the township forester would confirm all the species for tree replacement that there would be required an LOI as a condition of approval for the wetlands delineation. A highlands application
would be required. We would have to get appropriate new lot numbers and addresses from the tax assessor's office if this were to be approved. And that we would also provide a wooden split rail fence at the border of where the wetlands limit line is just to make sure
there's a demarcation that the homeowners, future homeowners could see in the field to protect those areas. and that we would also flip the driveways, which we did on the revised plan that was submitted to make sure that there were no windows kind of up against on
the neighbor side because previously the houses were set so far back. Now they've been brought more forward on the lots. Um there was some very minor testimony from Mr. Miola who is acting in both capacities as engineer and planner where
he did stipulate under his opinion as the planner that the goals of the municipal land use under items C, E, G, and I would be proposed as part of the positive and negative benefits um in accordance if the board were to seek to
grant the variances. And that's really it in a summary. I can have Mr. Miola just go through the revisions of the lot line. But that's where we're at. We listen to all the concerns. We can stipulate to the updated review memo
that we received from CPI dated October 29th and also the updated completeness from AR dated October 31. I mean October 30th. >> Oh, I'd like to just hear Mr. Miola talk about a little bit.
He's already under oath. I suppose >> just to clarify that both lots need frontage variances. >> Yes, both lots need frontage. Correct. >> So, Mr. Miola, >> yes. >> What the board has before them
is the revised plans based on discussion for the last meeting. And what we've done is we've eliminated the >> culdeac and we get two lots that are now fronting on >> Alexander.
>> Alex, thank you. I can't remember the name of it. Alexand um they have 50 foot of frontage each and divide it right down the middle and then the two homes are placed approximately 85 to 90 ft back from the
uh rightaway line. The homes are not large by any extent. These homes are 32x 34 ft first floor footprints and then a twocar garage that's 21x 22. And then what the
architect manages to do is to get a fourth bedroom over the garage so that it's a four bedroomedroom house. So I mean we're talking about 1100 square foot footprint of living space on the first floor. That's modest by
today's standards. I don't think there's much more we could cut out of it. And I I read the reports. I don't have any problems with either of the reports. I do agree with everything that the engineer has suggested.
um which can be clean up the plans and eliminate some of the details we don't need anymore. And we recognize that if the board approves it that we'll have to get an official LOI. The LOI was not the LOI but the wetlands was delineated for us
at the beginning by John Peele who's a recognized wetlands expert. That's all he does is wetlands. And uh the wetlands he did locate is slightly offsite. They're on the uh basically Route 287
right away, but the buffer for that wet lands would extend into our property. Uh we don't have a problems putting a fence along the buffer. You know, the buffer is nowhere near where the houses are going. There's still ample backyard for
both of these homes. >> And then Mr. Miola, just to reiterate the uh record as far as the planning proofs, is it your opinion as a professional planner, the plan allows for adequate light, air, and open space for the construction of the two new
single family dwellings? >> Yes, the both of these are both of these plans fit within the required setbacks. So, it's providing the anticipated light, air, and open space because it's meeting all of the setback requirements.
Um, and sorry I'm losing. I was just thinking of something and it went in and out of my head quickly. >> Well, you've also visited the neighborhood on multiple times, correct? >> And is it your professional opinion that
this plan fits within the general scheme of the neighborhood as it exists today? >> Yes, this is a subdivision that was created in 1954. Um the houses were much smaller back then. As you go out there, you can see
many of the houses have had additions put on to them. They a lot of them in conformance with the ordinance, but you know, people little by little are making the houses to today's comfortable standards. >> So, is it fair to say this is a pretty
mature neighborhood development? >> Yes, it is. And is it your opinion that it would promote a positive visual um residential aesthetic to the neighborhood as well? >> Yes. >> And make more effective use of the land.
>> Yes. And what I was going to point out to the board was with the board suggesting looking at it not putting in the culdeac. What you've done is now still have the same two houses, but you've eliminated the culde-sac, which from my client's standpoint, he was
willing to build it if we had to. But you got to remember the town would then have the maintenance on it for the rest of their life, >> plowing the snow, taking care of the curb, sidewalk, and everything else that goes associated with the culpas. So, the benefit really is for both the client
and the town. [Music] Is there any additional proofs or anything that you'd like to add to the record? Um, Mr. Miola. >> No, no. I' like to hear what the board thinks about my drawings that are coming out good.
>> I'll start with Mr. Kangiano asking questions because >> I I don't I don't have much. They addressed, you know, what we were looking for. Um, just uh my comment number four, and this is really just for the board's consideration. Um the houses
the lots are narrow um and they have sort of that triangular shape and as you go back it gets wider the lots. Um, and this is just the board's consideration and maybe the applicant may want to uh um give his opinion or comment regarding
is there any way to possibly rearrange the proposed dwelling in some way to get the square footage, but also make them a little bit narrower in some way that you can move those houses closer to the front yard kind of more in line with the
prevailing front yards. uh the the the the prevailing houses the adjoining houses that are that are closer to the street. Yeah. >> If if I may answer that cuz I had spoken to the applicant about it. The concern was on the architectural side. These homes are proposed to have twocar
garages. If you make them even narrower, what happens which a lot of municipalities are not for is that the front elevation then becomes all garage and very little front dwelling. So that was kind of part of that rationale of
trying to keep a balance of what the front elevation would look like from the road so it doesn't just look like a set of garages. >> That's for the board. That's I only brought it up for their consideration. >> No, and I looked at it when I got the comment. I looked at it too and the only
option there really is is to go to a onecar garage. And nobody wants a onecar garage today. Yeah. >> Agreed. Agreed. Do you have any comments on the planning testimony?
>> Um I mean you hit the pertinent points. >> Now this is a from my planning perspective too. This is a better option than um what was previously proposed. It's going to give you more green space, less impervious coverage, which are all
positives. Um so it and with the proposed fencing um it will provide some uh visual buffer from the neighbors too. >> Okay. Any members of the board have
questions on this testimony at this time? >> Hearing no questions. It's good. >> Are there any members of the public who have any questions on this testimony at this time? Hearing and seeing none.
>> What else have you got? >> That was it. I promised 10 minutes, so I promise you wait longer. >> That's all right. All right. There are any members of the public who wish to uh comment on this uh case at this time? Hearing and seeing
none. Um, I guess this closes the evidentiary portion of tonight's hearing. Do I hear a motion? >> Mr. Chairman, I have a quick question for Mr. Kangiano. So, if we have to pull the houses little bit front, how much
that would be? How many feet you're thinking of? >> Excuse me. Say that again. >> If we have to pull the houses a little forward, how much how many feet you're thinking of? >> Well, no. Again, it's a it's it's a it's a factor of the architectural footprint, the consideration, the the uh the way
the buildings look and and I just wanted to bring it up for a question that we had if there was a a reasonable way to rearrange the architecture that that that uh it still works and it becomes a little bit narrower. But again, it it
was just a question. >> Yeah. Yeah. I'm not an architect, so I couldn't tell you if there's a better way to lay that out and still make it look good and appropriate and be functional. >> Okay. Say the only way I can think of is if they took and turned the houses 90°
and so they have that the garage effect where the garage is facing you. >> Yeah. And then and then you see a lot of garage. >> You see a lot of garage >> and that would be more out of character, I think. >> Yeah. >> I'd rather let the the uh owners and the developers figure that out. >> Yep. Yep.
Come. >> Actually, I have one question on the zoning table. >> Yes. >> I'm looking at the front yard setbacks. One of them lots it says is 87.7 and the other one is 85.1.
>> Mhm. >> When I look at the call outs, I I can find the 85.1. I can't find the 87.7. I see 92.5. [Music] Which
>> which version of plan? >> Well, I see 85.9. >> Well, there's an 85.1 just beside it. >> Yeah, that too. >> Yeah, you have an 85.1 to the little bump out. >> Yes, I understand that. >> The house and you have 85.9
to the other bump out. Um, >> it's it's more the other lot that I'm >> the other lot closest dimension is 92.5. >> So, the zoning table's wrong. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> All right.
>> And I looked at that and maybe that's why the number was on there. At one time, we took the house and had turned it and put the long side parallel here, which gives me a little space here so I can move that house a little bit closer, maybe 3 or 5 ft. And I decided that I
thought it would look better as it came around the curb to step with the curb. But I mean, we could do that. You know, if you wanted to think in this location in Pipony near 287 in this neighborhood, I think
it looks fine. Just my own opinion here. >> And you have fencing on the sides of the house. Yes, we can put fencing or I was thinking if you want we can put a row of dark American arborings to buffer between us and the neighbor
to screen the house. >> So that sounds good. >> All right. Now we're we're in a motion. >> All right, Mr. Chairman. A motion to approve application number 24 527 SAP Sha 76 Alexander Avenue block
393 lot 20 zone R-3 >> preliminary and final major subdivision with C variance with major soul point permit for a two lot subdivision with a culac r extension. You can ask our attorney here for any of
the conditions. >> Conditions. Yeah. >> So, the conditions were um working with the township forester to make sure that the trees and and landscaping are the correct species to obtain an LOI as a condition of
approval. um to make an application to the Highlands Council uh to comply with the tax assessor's recommendations to construct the wooden split rail fence at the wetlands buffer to address all the comments in the board engineer and
board planners reports. Uh flip the driveways. You already did that. And I think this might have been a comment from one of the from the engineers report, but um there was a comment about a dry well and storm water management on
the site. >> Yeah, related to that in the review memo. The only other condition I had was um some type of buffer whether it be uh fencing or arborings between the neighbors >> and then to provide details with to the
township engineer regarding soil movement >> at that time and to do a deed restriction. Um, oh wait, I guess we don't need the deed restriction, >> right? >> That was from Okay. Um, no windows
facing the comply with the Morris County Planning Board. >> Mhm. >> I think that was it. >> All right. And that was included in your resolution. >> Yep. >> Yep. >> Do we have a second? >> Second, math.
>> Uh, Miss Yoli, would you call the role, please? >> Jich. >> Yes. Pierro, >> yes. >> Hernandez, >> yes. >> Math, >> yes. >> Dmore, >> yes. >> Thank you very much. Thank you for coming. >> Is there anything else that needs to
come before this board tonight? >> Hearing and seeing none. Do I have a motion to adjurnn? >> So move. >> Do I hear a second or you going to stay? >> I was going to suggest maybe we should look at the master plan today.
I'm just kidding. Since there's only five four five of us here. >> All right. Second for the >> Okay. All in favor say I. >> I. >> Anybody not gets to stay here. >> You only have >> Thank you all. >> Okay. But conditions are so much
changing. >> Thank you very much, Judy. >> The world's a different place now.