Got the light. Okay. >> Okay. >> Should I start over? >> Yeah. >> Okay. All right. Today is April 20th, 2026. Um at 7:30 p.m. This the township
party's planning board meeting. Uh announcement is made that adequate notice has been given and that is being conducted in accordance with NJSA 104-6 at SEC of the New Jersey Open Public Meetings Act. Nora, please call the role. >> Uh
I'm sorry. Um >> I just did the same thing. It's all right. >> Okay, >> we'll get there. >> Mayor Desai >> present. >> Mr. Dinsmore >> here. >> Mr. Dpiro >> here. >> Mr. Npalitano >> here.
>> Mr. I can't hear at all down here. So I don't know what's going on. I can't hear you. Sorry. >> Mr. Patel >> here. >> Mr. Shaw >> here. >> Chairman Vanikin >> here. >> We also have our uh board planner Mr. Ryan. Uh board engineer Miss Kest and our
board attorney Mr. Wenzo. >> All right. Would everybody please rise for the pledge of allegiance? 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, this meeting is open to the general public. We have two items on the agenda for this evening. Is there anybody in the general public that would like to bring anything to the board's attention which is not on the agenda for tonight? Seeing none, I'll close the public
portion. Our first application is application 26503, Ruckers Builders LLC. Please come forward. Good evening, Mr. Chairman. Joseph, follow the applicant. I understand we had a
notice problem our notice. What I would like to do, vary this at least two weeks to allow for green notice. I'd also like to preserve the notice that already been in publication. >> Okay.
>> Right. And chair uh chairman, uh I've been made aware of this from our board secretary. Uh there are a few uh corrections to the notice which I'm sure Mr. O'Neal is going to take care of. so he doesn't have to send the entire
notice uh packet. Um so this is uh the notice that did go out did go out in enough time. >> So uh if any member of the public is here with regard to application 26503 Rucker Builders LLC that matter is not
going to be heard tonight for the lack of complete notice. Uh the open notice items Mr. O'Neal is going to take care of. Uh, Nora, what date were we looking at from Mr. O'Neal? >> May 18th. >> So, May 18th. So, this is this is the
notice for those who have received notice that this this matter will return on May 18th. There's no need to renotice the ones that were perfected. Mr. O'Neal knows what to do. He's been around the block enough times.
>> Okay. All right. We'll go ahead and uh see you back on the 18th then. >> Thank you. >> All right. >> All right. Next application is 26502 toll New Jersey LLC. Applicant, please
come forward. This is the third presentation uh before the board. Correct. >> Yes, it is. Chairman. >> Okay. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Mayor, board members, professionals, members of the public, John Lucino here again on behalf
of the applicant. Am I good here? On the mic. On behalf of the applicant, uh, Toll NJ1 LLC. Uh, as chairman indicated, you may recall, we've had two hearings on this application for 178
unit inclusionary development. The first being on March 16th and the second on April 6th. You heard testimony from the applicants engineer Rob Michello regarding civil engineering and John Korak regarding traffic on March 16th. Uh you heard testimony from Matt Charell
regarding architecture on April 6th. Tonight, as promised, we are bringing back Mr. Michello regarding revisions to the engineering plans based on comments received on March 16th. We also have Alex Dhy as our planner to conclude the
applicant's case on planning for variance and waiver relief being sought. Uh so it is our intention as we sit here today to try and conclude this application tonight if we can. We've received two reports since the last
meeting although I was just told that there may be a third um that we haven't seen. Uh the first was dated and received on Friday, April 17th, and that's from the fire subcode official, Brian Ricky. Um and um we're generally
okay with that report. There was one provision in there which was a request for 26 foot width roads, um which we can't do. The New Jersey residential site improvement standards requires 24
foot rows and as we all know that the RSIS governs um road widths and all of the other things that it governs. So the municipality cannot impose a more ownorous um or greater requirement than
what the RSIS requires. And the RSIS requires 24 ft roads. Um, the next report we received, we received today from Chief Ryan Masker of Mount Taber Fire District. The report, incidentally, is dated March 17th, but we got it
today. Um, and the only request there that that we can't really live with is number 18, which requests that no EV chargers be installed on the property, and if they are, they be installed a minimum of 150 ft from all the
structures. um that runs a foul with state policy and regulations that entitle people to RV uh EV chargers in their garages if they want them. So, we can't comply with that uh request. Um
now, I do understand that there was a a separate report on the new plans that was submitted by the board's engineer. I have not seen that report. I don't think we have seen that report. What I would suggest that we do since Mr. Michello
was here, hopefully his presentation will be comprehensive enough to address whatever comments are in the report. But if not, let's hear the comments and see where we are. All right. So, without any further ado, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to
call up Mr. Rob Michel. Mr. Michello, you understand you're still under oath. That's correct. >> Yes, that's correct. Has there been any change to your license or professional qualifications since the last time you testified on March 16th? >> No, there has not. >> Why don't we just for the record, why don't we just have him uh state and
spell his name for the record. >> Robert Mohello, M O S C H E L L. And the business address is 265 Main Street, Gladstone, New Jersey. >> Thank you, M. Michelle. You remain under oath and uh remain as a expert in the field of civil engineering.
>> Yep. Thank you, Mr. Monzo. Okay, Mr. Michello. Why don't you please uh testify and explain the changes that were made to the plans for the board? >> Great. Excellent. I have a few exhibits that I'm going to utili utilize this evening for that. So, what number are we up to in the in the count?
>> 810. 810. >> So, that that's what we show. We'll rely on the order. >> 810. >> 810. Um, so for the record, um, this is entitled site plan rendering. It's actually dated March
16th, 2026 and it's revised April 20th, 2026. So I'll mark that. Um, and we'll note that 810 for the record. So this is an updated version of the rendering that I presented at the first hearing for the project. Um, again, just
for, you know, our just for reference purposes, um, north being up in the top leftand corner of the plan here, we have Littleton Road on the I'll say the southeast side. You have, um, Gate Hall Drive coming in off of that that wraps around um, to Route 10, which is just
off the bottom of the page. And we have one one gate hall to the to the north, three Gate Hall to the west, and then our project site, which is, of course, Fort Gate Hall here in the middle of the plan. So basically this plan is it's just an updated version of what was um previously presented and for the most
part the site layout and and most of these site accutraments remain unchanged. The number of units remain unchanged the building the road layouts remain unchanged. Basically what we did was we updated more of the specific engineering details um on the plans themselves. And just to go through some
of those items that we we we updated on there, first and foremost was we updated the parking counts um to be consistent with the the comments that were discussed in the review letters. But to just put on the record overall, you know, the parking requirement for the project is 421 spaces, which we
clarified that and referenced everything as townhouse units as requested. So we need 421 parking spaces are required for the project and we are proposing for the project 479 spaces. So, we clarified that on the plans to to note what is
what was being proposed for the overall project. We also um cleaned up the uh electric vehicle parking requirements that were on the plans and we noted now we have 13 surface EV parking spaces that are spread throughout the parking
development on site. And of those 13 spaces, one is now an ADA accessible EV charging space as required per the state statute. Thank you. We'll just pass out a passing out a copy of the plan there for the for the board. So, you can see that
>> it's just a a smaller version of what you already have up on the board. >> Okay. >> Um, as far as um some of the uh in zoning information goes, we did update on the cover sheet. We removed the request for
the RSIS guest parking de dimminimous exception since that's no longer required. Um and then we also updated the signed variance um information which I'll get to when I talk about the signs in a little bit. Is that a variance or a waiver on the signs? >> I believe it's a variance. Thank you.
>> So some other little items that we cleaned up on the plans. We updated um the sidewalk network in terms of all the ramps at the intersections and the crosswalks. You're not really going to be able to see that on the smaller scale plan you have in front of you, but that was a comment that was in the review letter. So, those have been those have
been updated. We added additional striping for crosswalks and stop bars and lane striping on the plans. Um, we also um we also added to the plan, and you should be able to see it on here, a sidewalk connection from the
southeastern corner of the project around the back of the units to Odell um Road. that this way residents who are there can walk to the businesses on on Odell Road. So, we added that to the plan. >> Yes, with the staircase. There's probably some grading tweaks that need to be done ultimately, but we show that
on the plans now and that's been that's been added to there. >> Um the the the other major change that we did um was we updated the landscaping um in in certain areas on the plan. So, just to go through the overall landscaping numbers that we updated
that's relative to the overall plan you see here. Um, originally we were we were removing 195 trees on the original demo plan. There was some comments from the board about about some of I think they were pair trees along Odell Road that you felt that were probably going to be
in bad shape over time. So there are 14 of them. We marked those to be removed. So now we're up to a total of 209 trees to be removed when you include those pear trees. That's noted on the plans. We we are now proposing with the new trees that we're planting. We're
proposing a total of 263 trees that are now proposed whereas before we're at 239 trees. And when you break that down into some smaller numbers, um we had 58 deciduous trees originally. Now we have 70. So an increase of 12. We had 107 evergreen
trees. We're now 210. We added a couple more evergreen trees. Uh we had 74 ornamental trees. We now have 83. So we added nine more ornamentals. And they we added additional shrubs. Originally we had 75 shrubs. Now we have 116 shrubs. Primarily the change is mostly we're adding some additional shrub plantings
around the retaining walls um in this grouping of of homes here on site. We added additional shrubs along Littleton. We filled in some additional plantings along um Odell Road to to enhance that buffer there now that we took down the uh the pear trees. Um and then some additional um trees spread throughout
the uh the site. So all told, we have an additional 48 trees that we are proposing now compared to where we were before. Um, another change that was made to the plans was the lighting plan was updated. Um, I know there were some comments um, in one of the review letters about the
distribution of lighting across the ex the proposed um, surface parking spaces that are on site. Um, those were the parking spaces that are generally around the around the loop road. Um, for both the affordable units and the regular stack units that are around the middle portion of the project site here. um we
redistributed the park the lighting and made sure we had uniform lighting levels across those parking spaces. So we end up adding an additional um six light poles for a total of 38 now. So we have a better uniform lighting plan across the site as was mentioned in one of the in one of the review letters. Those
lights will still be dark sky compliant, LED light fixtures and the like, but we def we just redistributed the lighting levels um a bit more. Um before I move on to my next exhibit, I do want to point out that while it's not
shown on the exhibit itself, we did update some sign information. There are two signs proposed for the proposed for the project as I testified to. Um, one is when you come in along road A over here and the second one is if you come in from um, three gate hall from the
hotel. Um, with the intersection of road B and that access drive, there's a smaller sign there. Um, we confirm the size of the signs 84 ft and 59.5 ft, which are both larger than your ordinance requirements of 24 ft. So, there's a variance required for that. We
have two signs where your ordinance only permits one. So, that's also a variance as well. But we did note on the plans that the sign face would typically be a black and white color sign face. The supports for the sign will be black and the base of it will be a stone veneer that will match the architectural selections of the uh buildings
themselves. So that detail is updated. It's also going to be um up ground up llit with a ground mounted light. >> And are these signs from a size perspective uh representative of the size of signs you would see for communities such as the one being proposed >> for this type of community of this
number of units. Those signs are are representative of the square footage as you would see for those types of communities. Yes. Um so and those details were updated on the on the detail sheet as as well. Um my next exhibit and this is um A1 for
the record. This is entitled um foundation plant and exhibit dated April 20th, 2026. And on our site plans, there were first in the review letters, there were comments about um looking at the different
landscaping around the units for the foundation plantings and how that could affect whether you have a north facing, south facing, east to west facing unit and the types of landscaping that could be around those units um based upon those orientations. So where we originally had three layouts initially,
we updated our detail sheets to have now seven different foundation planting layouts um that show whether your units are facing south or north or east and how that how the how they would be planted um in terms of the groupings of of of shrub massing and mulch beds and
and the like. So, this plan that's being handed out now represents those details that were on our detail sheet. We just colorized it for the board and we have here, you know, the different types of shrub plantings and the quantities and so forth. But I'm not going to go into the individual details, but pretty much
what we're showing on there now are a mix of um yeah, I was going to say a mix of u sumac, junipers, hydrangeas, and the like um around the site for the for the foundation plantings that are shown there. Um as well as um some hollies and
and and so forth. So again, it's it's just a it's just a different breakdown depending on which way the buildings are facing and how that landscaping is being um being coordinated on those on those units. We also, while it's not an exhibit, we also did go through and update um the
grading plans with with cleaning up some of the grading that was on there that the engineer had comments on as well as um the storm water management system. We added some additional calculations and clarified some a number of the comments that were in in um the letter as well. That was addressed in in our responses
to to to the uh to the board. The last exhibit, I actually have two exhibits here. I'll go I'll hand them out both. >> Are these together or are these two separate exhibits? >> They're two separate exhibits, but they represent sort of the same thing. Um, first one is emergency vehicle turning
exhibit A. This will be A12 for the record. Also dated April 20th, 2026. Um, and I'm going to mark it now and I'll hand it out. Um, emergency vehicle turning exhibit B. Mark that as A13 for
the record and 420 26 2026 handle both out. collection. So, what we've prepared here is a turning move, exhibit A and exhibit B, which represents um what essentially would be the turning movements for a a
full-size ladder type firet truck um that would um be able to navigate through the site. We did get a review letter today from the fire chief as as as um Mr. Mr. Englescino pointed out and that that review letter did have on page three the dimensions of your township's
ladder truck. Um we did not have those dimensions when we ran this model, but we used what is typically one of the largest trucks that we know in the Mars County Somerset County area. And when we check the dimensions versus what your fire chief provided to us, the truck that we show on here is just slightly
larger by a few inches. So in terms of representing what would be the turning movements, this was representative of what would be a slightly larger truck. So if this truck can maneuver the site, that truck would also the township truck would also be able to maneuver the site. And this basically just shows the truck turning movements if you were to come in
from gate hall and drive down road A and then navigate around through the site and then come and then head back out again towards Gate Hall Drive. and it shows that the truck can make that make make that maneuver through the site both in in terms of going down the major loop roads and also going down road E. Um,
and if it can it can make those movements, it can make movements around the entire property based on the geometry of the uh of the roads. So, these plans would certainly be included as part of supplemental drawings with the drawing set. Um, you know, should the board act favorably upon the application.
And I believe that concludes my direct testimony on the plan changes. >> Back to you, Mr. Chairman. >> Okay. Would do our professionals have any questions for the um witness?
>> Um I appreciate you making so many of the changes that we had requested in our initial review letter. Um I know that you don't have the benefit of the revised review letter. Apologize for that. Um there were several items that you had mentioned in your response
letter that would be taken care of at a future date if you receive favorable favorable votes. Um were there any of the items that you feel you wouldn't be able to comply with or make changes or >> um from an engineering and planning
perspect plans I don't believe there's anything that we would be we wouldn't be able to address. >> Okay. Um, one thing that I'd like you to describe a little bit, I recall one of your comments, um, about the existing wet pond.
There were some initial concerns about changes that were being made to the wet pond and it seems like that's been revised and now there's not going to be changes to the wet pond. Is that correct? >> Yes. when we did the initial storm water calculations, the way we had looked at
it in terms of determining where the reduction factors should be calculated and so forth. Um once we went back in and based upon the comments that was in your letter and then we went back and took a closer look at things, we were able to modify the analysis point to be where the water enters the pond, not
where it's leaving the pond. And we were able to show that when the with the water where it enters the pond that we'd be able to meet the state required reduction factors at that point. Therefore, negating the need to make any modifications to the pond itself and then show that there's no impact to the
either the flow out of the pond or the water surface elevation of the pond based upon the new development. >> Thank you. >> You're welcome. I was just going to say and I'll defer to Lear on this because this is more the engineering. There are certain comments in in here that talk about testimony. I
just want to make sure that we nail them all because when we but assuming this is approved and we're in resolution compliance. I don't want to go 6 months from now and said it was testimony provided for certain items. So, can you bear with me a second while I go through here? Anything that says testimony, I
just want to make sure we we nailed it down. Okay. Uh, page 14, site plan comments. Do we testify about trash and refues? >> Previously, I >> I think it was I think the architect
testified with regard to refugees. Number one, there will be a private hauler. It would not be the township providing the uh service. We do anticipate uh a municipal fair services act agreement uh at a future date but the
service will be provided by the association. >> Okay. So that that satisfies that. So uh I item two on site plan comments was addressed tonight about the signage. Okay. So that's testimony is provided um about the extension of the existing
C. This is comment number. Comment number three was addressed. Comment four talks about testimony about extension of an existing patio. Is there about any agreements between property owners for the rose work? I don't even know if that was addressed.
>> That was discussed in the first meeting. >> Is that the pond area too or No, this is the patio area. >> The patio water feature I think right? >> Yeah. Where they connect and they >> had discussed that there's ongoing agreements.
>> Yeah. So, we have to get an easement for that to do that work. So, that'll be a condition of approval. >> It's comment addressed during testimony. >> Okay. That's that's what I like. >> Condition. >> Okay. Um, you testified I mean either you or the architects already testified about
proposed screening for the transformer. >> Yeah, I covered that. >> That was that was on the fir the first go round. So, that was addressed. >> Um, okay. So, grading comments. I'm just seeing anything that says test. I just want to make sure that we get that
comfortation. So, um going jumping to page 16, item three, right top, we was testimony provided about the uh delineated wetlands. I believe it was about the D filings. >> Yes, we testified that there were no
>> weapons in the first hearing. >> That was in the first hearing. >> This should have been crossed out in the first place, but we're doing it now. Okay. >> Okay. >> Attorney, just for just for my edification, cuz I was my associate here at that first meeting on those
delineated wetlands. Uh, is there is a is there a filed um wetlands delineation yet on this one or >> the testimony was there were there were no wetlands. >> I'm sorry. >> The testimony was that there are no >> there are no wetlands. Oh, well that's a good one.
>> That's okay. So, we're we're going quicker now because there's a lot of comments addressed. Okay. No testimony. I'm all the way on page 19. So, okay. on on page 20 item one on traffic testimony's already been provided about
peak hour trips that was a traffic comment and traffic and >> yeah so there was extensive testimony by Mr. Korak uh at the last meeting with regard to traffic. I think he addressed all of the issues that were in the reports and answered all questions from
the board, board professionals, and the public. >> I I concur with that, but that's just one of those we would like to cross out. >> Okay. I had some minor comment. There was item nine about the CVS and and the comments and how many calculations. I think I figured that my difference with
the engineer was he was rounding on all of the categories, >> right? >> And I don't round until the end and that's what we were coming up three. I mean it's a minimal difference. I'm not saying dimminimous, >> right? >> But as long as we agree with what what is required, I think this is semantical because you're overp parking as it is.
>> Correct. Yeah, we are over parking by quite a bit. Just making sure the information's correct. If there's anything that you can't live with in item nine, speak now or perhap forever. Hold your peace. >> It's basically just reconcile the numbers. >> Yeah, you good with that? Okay, >> that's fine. Yes.
>> Uh it's this one here about item 11 on page 23. It says testimony should be provided about about the on street parking spaces. I do recall whe whether it's going to be assigned to residents or designated for visitors only. I think it's a combination of both. It's assign.
Well, it's assigned to residence. >> So, it's assigned to resign to res. >> Okay. So, there we go. Circle it. It's done. >> Uh, okay. >> Uh, on that though, there is dedicated visitor parking, I believe, too. Is that correct?
>> No, we there was no dedicated. >> They're telling me there is. Okay. There will be designated visitor parking. Yes. >> Will that be identified? Just >> Yes. It hasn't been yet, but it will be. >> Okay. Okay, I'm I'm flying down here now. Almost on the last page.
Most most of these are just for revisions. Okay. And I think we have checked everything that had to deal with test testimony. So we don't have to worry about that again and loop back and not forget 6 months from now. Thank you. >> All right. Very good. Uh does that
conclude questions from our professionals? Just one. >> Yeah, just um >> I'm trying to find uh and maybe it's because this is a smaller version of what's up there as your exhibit A10.
Um but you said there's there is a uh an EV spot that you are designating as ADA compliant. >> Yes. Can you just point where that is on
your on A10? >> Yeah, that's what I'm trying to find out. Yeah, >> I need >> while while he does that, one thing that I would just advise to the board and council is that we've already seen with
the fire department's letter about asking for EV locations. I have always recommend that these would be illustrative and subject to final approval by the fire department because this is a very sensitive subject. >> Well, again, except that we can't
>> Well, I know you've already put on the record that that particular clause, but I normally say that because if we have it on say on the northeast and he says, "Can you move it three down?" And I would hate you to come back and say we got to amend the site plan because we can't put it exactly where we
>> Yeah. We we'll coordinate with the fire department and your other professionals with regard to items that are relevant to their area of jurisdiction. >> Is that satisfactory council? >> Yeah. I'm just what I'm really concerned about is, you know, in terms of the ADA
spot. Um, you know, we we I I see that we have ADA or the old days we used to call them handicap spaces. Uh, but um, you know, are is the EV
the EV handicap space that's just like any other space? Is van accessible? >> It it is. And there's two spots on the site. That's the the real question is, is it van accessible? That that's that's the rubber meeting the road not to use. >> It meets the van accessible requirement. >> Okay, that was the only concern.
>> And while we're on it, um it's also one of the closer spots to the handicapped uh the wider floor plan, which I believe is uh unit type G. >> Can you just show there's two locations there? We have two locations where it can go based on the the grading of the
plant. There's there's a location up here by the intersection of road A and road B, but there's also a location um over here on road C. So, that's probably the closer one to that that unit uh that unit G. >> Okay. Okay.
All right. Uh is that conclude testimony from our professionals or I'm sorry, questions from our professionals. >> Okay. I think that's fine. All I'm going to say is that if you before the end of the evening, if you just look through that letter and see if there's anything that that's problematic, say so now
because again, once again, because if you're approved, it's going to become a condition of approval. >> Yeah, >> we don't have a copy. Do we have a copy of the letter that the letter that came out today from your engineer? Because we we know a letter came out. We just don't have a copy.
>> Yeah, we we issued it on Friday. I don't know. >> We just never received it. And I'd like Mr. Michello to review it. >> I'll give you my copy. There was an issue uh with escrow and the review got held up and and then today honestly
>> Sure. Yep. >> You have a hard copy, Norop. >> Okay. I I mean I think the board I'm fine with hearing Mr. Dory if he's coming up next while you review that letter. So you don't need to >> don't wait for me to review it.
>> Mr. Dy come up now. >> If we could just have questions from the board for the >> I know Mr. Dhy's very excited to come up and and testify. Yeah. Yeah. You could you could tell he's he's got that lean hungry look, but uh he'll he'll calm
himself. >> Okay. Uh questions from the board. Any >> Go ahead, Nick. Sorry, >> Mr. Npalitano. >> That's not That's fine. I can hear that all day long. The school I don't want to hear it anymore. All right. Um, thank you, Mr. Changes. Um, could you repeat
one more time? Can someone walk through with the back through a Dell Road to go to Tommy's Tavern? >> Yes, that's the intent of the sidewalk. >> That's all I want to hear. Thank you. >> Yes. >> Or Bars are noble. Okay. Of >> course. Yeah.
>> Any other questions? Oh, I'm seeing Uh only two questions and I don't know if our our next witness will cover that but um uh with regards to the turning radius what I'm seeing on the diagram presented is that the southern corner in
the bottom right there is is potentially the most difficult to get around out of all of them. Is that >> you're referring this this corner here? >> Yeah, that's correct. >> Yeah. Well, what you're seeing there is the the shaded portion is the actual vehicle. um wheelbase and then you'll
see a dash line that just kind of almost hits the curb. That's the that's the overhang of the truck itself. Okay. >> So, just because of the length of it and there's actually a bucket on the front of it, but >> So, as long as we don't put a fire hydrant, there will be >> Yes. I'm not going to put a light pole right there. >> Okay. Uh and then the second item there
also related to turning radius is uh would a school bus fit through there also? >> It it the firetruck's the bigger of the two vehicles. So, if it can maneuver through the site, the school bus can certainly maneuver through. >> Very good. Thank you for that. Um the last question is for me is regarding the signs. I see on the last page of the
packet that we have provided. There's the two signs there. The larger and the smaller. Could you just remind me where the larger sign is going? Where the smaller sign is going? >> The large the larger sign is when you come in off of one gate hall at the curve right here on road A is the larger sign. And the smaller sign is if you were to come in through three gate hall
at the T intersection with road uh B right right here. It's is the smaller sign. That's all my questions. Anyone else on the board? All right. Any questions from the general public for our engineer? All right. Seeing none,
we'll close that portion. >> Okay. We'll next subject to Mr. Michelle to be recalled if needed and we'll bring up Mr. Dhy. >> All right, Mr. Dhy. So, as Mr. Dhy is coming up. Um cuz I'm
a lawyer. I guess it's my job to take a few Well, good to see you. Do well tonight. I'll have to tell your mother if you don't. Um so just a legal point that I want to make just because that's what I do. Um
we have some minor relief that we're seeking here from the board uh with regard to variances and waiverss. not uncommon. Uh even with redevelopment plans when you do the hard engineering there's typically small deviations as
there are here. Um as I pointed out in my opening statement because this application is being made to purs pursuant to Paripid's affordable housing plan there actually is a regulation uh NJAC 593-
10.1B that provides in pertinent part. I just want to read it. Says municipalities shall be expected to cooperate with developers of inclusionary developments in granting reasonable variances necessary to construct the inclusionary
development. Um so while we certainly don't feel that any of the varants here are a heavy lift our our view um I just wanted the board to be cognizant of the fact that when variances are being sought in connection with an
inclusionary development that there there is some uh I I'll call it a lesser standard or uh there is this imposed obligation on the board with respect to those variances uh to work with us. So,
um, that said, um, Mr. Dhy, welcome. >> Thank you. >> Why don't you raise your hand to be sworn in? >> Okay. Uh, do you swear affirm tell truth for this planning board tonight? >> I do. >> Okay. Mr. Dy, please state and spell your name for the record. >> Alexander Dhy. D O U G H E R T Y.
>> All right. Mr. Dohy, can we have your qualifications on briefly? >> Certainly. um license planner uh education at a rocker blouse with a masters >> is at a uh rocker blouse with a masters in city and regional planning conseration development and redevelopment certification public
policy um I testify in this capacity on a weekly and daily basis I've been before this board more so your zoning board um and and I would >> your license to practice professional planning state of New Jersey is up to date >> yes >> checked your emails >> yes
>> okay he knows when he shows in front of me. I always ask him that. >> All right. So, we offer Mr. Dohy as an expert in planning. Mr. Chairman, >> any objections from the board. >> All right. Seeing none, we'll move forward. >> Thank you. >> All right. Mr. Dhy, we have a few
variances here uh and uh dimminimous exceptions and uh waiverss. If you would kindly speak to those and provide the planning proofs. >> Sure. You got an exhibit you want to >> Yeah, I just have a uh a brief exhibit of this current site. I know we are very
familiar with it. If I could pass it around just for orientation purposes. >> Right. We'll mark it as A14. >> And if you can just uh tell us uh Alex briefly what A14 is. >> So A14 is a drone photographs. It's a
packet containing four slides. uh taken today um of the current site as it is out in the field for some orientation purposes of what's there and what we're proposing. As as council indicated, we do have some minor relief. Um but I
think uh certainly um we can walk the board through that relief and kind of just keep in mind what's out there today and and site better in life. >> All right. Thanks, M. Derby. Go ahead. >> Certainly. So again, the exhibit here is just four photographs, drone shots of
the existing site. Um, and as council indicated, this is part of the Fort Gate Hall Drive redevelopment plan. This does have a 20% set aside uh for inclusionary affordable housing. Um, about 36 affordable uh rate units. Total project
is 178 units here. Um, with that, from a planning standpoint, I'd like to think this project is is really in in line with the greater uh undertone of the redevelopment plan here. Um, this is a permitted use now within the zone. Substantially complies
with the bulk controls, the lot sizes, density, building heights, building lengths, building coverages, lot coverages, the setbacks on all sides, distance between buildings, parking supply. We're pretty much in compliance. Um you know we do have a few minor things here um to go through. Um as you
can see in the existing site here it's the you know really substantially uh vacant office building large asphalt parking. Um this new plan has a compliant um architectural and landscaping plan as we just went through
uh circulations and and refuge and recycling. really self-contained here but yet integrates well with this site and surrounding. We have some relief and I'll defer to the board planner for any that I missed. Upon my review, we have some relief
related to slope disturbances of all three categories. I want to just emphasize this site is not uh natural. It's artificial. These disturbances, these slopes were made when this office complex was built. Um, so to really
redevelop this site in any capacity, I'm not a site engineer, but I like to think that we're going to be disturbing slopes here uh to some capacity. So, we do have some disturbance related to the 15 to 20% category. Um, we're at 15 acres
versus the 06. I think that's the greatest uh degree of departure, which is also um a smaller slope, if you will. We have a 20 to 25% range. we're at 07 uh acres versus the 03 and then the
greater than 25% range. We're at.13 acres versus the10 acres. So, um I like to think the the greater departure is the uh smaller slope range. Um we do have some design uh exceptions for the
sign setback of 10 ft versus 25. I know there's a brief discussion whether that's that should be considered a variance. Um, I believe it's a uh a design exception. And again, that's internal to the site, only visible uh to the three gate hall access point, which is that smaller sign we just last
discussed. And um and correct me if I'm wrong, council, we still have the RSIS uh exception for the sidewalk on the one side. >> Yep. The min exception. And um I believe we comply now with the parking requirements. So that that one is is
off. >> We do comply with the parking requirements. >> Right. So for purposes of the planning um the bigger chunk of the variances here are those steep slope disturbances. Um but from a planning standpoint we can justify this relief um what we call C
relief. It's a lower tier. Um we can justify as a C2. It's that flexible balancing test. The benefits of this application as a whole will substantially outweigh any detriments. and reminding the board those benefits again come with affordable housing components and redeveloping the site and
and you know the the improvements that come with that. Um so we talk about those benefits um advancing the purposes of the redevelopment plan again to really in conformance substantially with the intent of that plan but the MLUL we can advance purpose A as a project
promotes a general welfare with new housing stock. This includes the realistic opportunity for the h affordable housing in accordance with um the town's uh housing uh element fair share plan. We have purpose G. The project promotes the planning goal to
provide a variety of uses and appropriate locations according to the needs of all New Jersey citizens because it improve uh provides that inclusionary housing where the market and affordable units are integrated here. Again, there's a mix of uh affordable and market rate. purpose I the project
promotes a desirable visual environment. I think it's really what this pack is really to reflect is what's there today. We can turn that over to something more um desirable. Uh also from an architectural standpoint and the landscape architectural standpoint the site is is unified and you know good
sound planning you know kind of chop up that asphalt and and make more efficient use of that and greenify that area as well. purpose and to promote um the planning goal for efficient use of land as it um puts approved development uh developable residential units uh here um
to developers ready, willing and able um as we as we went through you know multiple rounds of this application before the board um you know we're committed today the applicant to developing this project. So certainly more efficient use of land to to provide that here. When I look at the potential
detriments as it relates to these steep slopes and um again these are isolated areas. They're artificial. They're man-made due to this uh office uh um project. It's really pockets of it. Um you know when we talk about why we have
steep slopes in the planning standpoint, it really is to prevent erosion and settlement you know uh controls here. This is not your typical definition of steep slopes in that regards. and and I think what the intent of an ordinance for steep slopes is is really truly
about. Um but nonetheless, we get an opportunity to stabilize that with best engineering practices and and stabilize those slopes. Um and you know, when we look at the slope relief itself, I think it could be granted without substantial detriment. This site is going to be fully developed. It's not an isolated
steep slope disturbance. It's a it's a holistic approach here. It's not a detriment to the area or the zone plan or the surrounding uh you know, greater neighborhood here. Um, with that being said, the benefits of this project certainly can outweigh that that provides for a better zoning alternative. Again, that those steep
slopes are not uh natural, but we could also justify this under that C1 category of a hardship because it relates to the features of the land itself. So, again, that's why I opened up to develop the site to some capacity. I'd like to think that we're going to disturb these slopes to some some nature. Um, so I'll I'll
leave it to the board a C1 or a C2, but again I think C2 is is is better off here for the the conversation at hand. And then we have those design exceptions. That's a lesser tier relief here. Um, they're more relaxed, lesser burden of proof than that that SE relief. You really just have to kind of,
you know, talk about the reasoness and the impracticality. You know, is it impossible or reasonable? So designing sessions for the sign setback, I think it's reasonable as it integrates into the overall site. It's really internal to that three gate hall access point and I think strict little enforcement of
that uh ordinance or design component here isn't practical. It serves no practical purpose. The sign still identifies you know the intended user of of traffic in that regards. Um and I really do defer to the the engineers before me why their placement was there
and the likes of that as a planner. I do have to rely on my colleagues on that. And the and the size the size was a variance. And you heard the testimony in which the engineer opine that the size of the signs being proposed are uh in accordance with and consistent with
signs for similar types of developments. >> Yes. And as going to the deferring to the uh professionals before me. Um safety is paramount. So if you know we don't want to put aside a sign that's too small or we don't want to put a sign that's too large where it obstructs
other visions and and it becomes intrusive. So I'm going to leave it to my colleague before me that the sign is is appropriately sized and and located within reason strict little enforcement serves no practical you know uh um advancement. Um I don't see any detriment with that. To conclude really
to wrap this up um this this application provides a realistic opportunity for that affordable housing to help the town meet its obligation. Again, this site was a part of the third round that carried to the fourth. So, it's a little bit overdue. We have a willing and able applicant to develop this site as the
redevelopment plan intended. The relief saw is necessary to advance the good of the project. Again, can be granted without any substantial detriment and I believe the statutory criteria for relief uh would be met and approval would otherwise be warranted. >> No further questions, Mr. Chair. >> All right. Uh do our professionals have
any questions for our expert? No questions to the planner. >> Just more a comment um on steep slopes. I'm probably a subject matter expert on this because when I work for city planning in New York, I work in the Staten Island office and our major work
was in the special natural area district and the hillside preservation district. I have a feeling that's where these regulations come from. And I can tell you what the intent was to protect natural steep slopes, not man-made. But the problem is is when the co the code
can't differentiate. It's just too difficult. >> So I think what Mr. Doy has said that he talked about the intent. I'm giving you my professional opinion based on my past experience. I agree with him. >> Um that said, you have these uh areas and you know the testimony has been
provided. They'll work to stabilize them, but they are man-made. So that almost gets into a hardship. I mean that's to me you inherited this. No one these didn't exist prior. We're not dealing with a mountain. these were made by your prior by prior owners. So, but I
think the testimony overall is that it they're going in the spirit. So, I just wanted to just share that because it's not too many times you have a guy from New Jersey planner who kind of knows where this stuff came from. So, >> that's true. >> Anyway, thank you. >> Thank you.
>> Okay, any questions from members of the board? >> I just have one. >> Go ahead, Mr. Is it possible that there there's a program you guys could use where you take the plan and like what the houses are supposed to
look like and then superimpose it like a before and after type thing. >> Are we going to do that? >> Yeah, we could do that. There's there's software >> obviously not now. I'm just saying is there a software that's available now? >> I know I could do that in Photoshop. We can dim the back layer and superimpose the top one. I I do know it's a weird
request. No offense because sometimes they >> we're not an engineer so it's kind of like illustrative purposes and >> we don't want to accidentally you know say this is what it will be and this is how it is cuz it's not really as a planner our specialty but going forward I can certainly have the engineering
staff and architects do that for our exhibits. >> That' be great. I think that's uh helpful for everybody. Just my thought. >> I think for for coordination purposes um the pond's not changing so you know if that helps. No, I think look, I mean, we see this big giant uh building and a
very large parking lot and we want to see what it might look like when this all finished because this looks whole thing looks amazing to me. So, >> just wonder if that's a possibility. >> I can concur it can be done. >> Yeah. >> Uh but M as Mr. Dy said this these are illustrative when you start getting into showing something that you are actually
going to represent that it looks like it. You must you know it's a little more detailed. You have to go into scaling it to say and you use what equipment you use, what scale it's on. I used to do this a lot with telecom, you know, doing photo simulations and the testable. We used to do visual impact studies and
we'd go into the methodology >> into how it, you know, how it came about, how our our graphic artists got these things. So, and this is going back 15 years. So, the technology is advanced. It can be done, but it's it's not as simple as just flying a drone.
Let's put it that way. >> That's great. Thank you. All right. Any other questions from the board? >> All right. Seeing none, I'll open it up to questions from the general public. >> Seeing none, uh, I'll turn it back over to you, Mr. Inglacino.
>> Mr. Chairman, can we uh impose on a five impose upon you to take a fivem minute break >> just to further review the document? >> Yeah, I just want to have a conversation with my client, Mr. >> I am open to that. Uh, we'll meet back then at I think in the process on record. >> I can still do that. >> Okay. I think I know what time
>> time is 8:35. We're resuming our presentation. Mr. Englesino, anything further from your witnesses? >> Uh, nothing further from the witnesses. I did have a chance to confer with Mr. Michello and my client. Um, and uh, the
balance of the letter, the engineering letter from today is uh, is is okay, is fine. We accept that. >> Uh, so um, I think that kind of concludes our case. You want me to just do a quick closing? Um or or I can do that after the board.
>> Would you like me to do comments first? >> That way you can >> comments from the from the public. Yes. >> Okay. >> Very good. At this point, we'll open the uh the floor up to comments from the general public on any part of the application. Seeing none, we'll close the public
comment. Please continue. >> Well, thank you, Mr. Chair. I first of all, I want to thank the board. Um Mr. Mayor, thank you, the board, board professionals. um for your time and attention to this application. Uh I guess I kind of want to end where I started, which is uh thanking Council
President Hernandez, Councilman Karifi, uh for working with us and the community. This is really a success story here. This is a an office building that is antiquated um that is soon to be completely vacant. Um, and Parcipony was
able to marry its uh, affordable housing requirement with a vacant office building and to do it in a way that had support uh, from the neighbors. Uh, Councilwoman Hernandez, Councilman Karifi had put together community uh,
meetings over a year ago with the neighbors so that this project was uh, conceptualized as a community effort uh, between the neighborhood uh, and the and the applicant and the owner. Um, so we feel that the process worked really really well. Uh, since there is some
press here, I want to make clear for the fact that although this is a a redevelopment plan, these are for sale town homes, no pilots uh involved here. Uh the reason why this is a redevelopment plan is because the board's prior planner uh insisted upon
it so that uh the residential would be confined only to the property at issue here and and not to other would not be creating residential rights in other properties in the zone. Uh so that's why the redevelopment process uh was uh was
utilized. Um, I know Toll Brothers is very excited to be here in Paripony. This is truly one of America's great home builders, a luxury home builder. Um, and this is going to up the, uh, the stock, the housing stock in Paripony,
modernize it. Um, and, uh, and really be something good, which we feel will be good for, uh, not only revenues, but also for property values, uh, in the in the area. Um, you know, the project itself you're you're familiar with. It's in accordance with the redevelopment
plan. Um, you know, we are uh accepting of uh the comment letters and review the questions with the exceptions of the uh few comments that I made at the beginning here. There are a lot of conditions that uh we'll work with Joe
to make sure are included in the resolution. Um, one that I did not want to u go unmentioned tonight was that the applicant will agree uh to make title 39 applicable within the development if if that's what the governing body wants.
And again, title 39 would simply authorize and deputize the police department to enforce local ordinances, rules, and regulations um on private roads. Um, and so that's a fairly popular thing that's done between
municipalities and uh and homeowner associations. So we want to make sure that uh you know this applicant would be agreeable to doing that. Um other than that I don't want to go through all of the testimony and the application. I think you all are familiar with it. Uh just to say that uh I know Toll Brothers
is excited to be coming to Paripany with your support. Um, thank you again for your time and attention and uh we hope that you'll support this project enthusiastically. >> Very good. Thank you very much. Uh, at this point I'll open it up to the board for any deliberation on this
application. >> I'll make a comment. >> Go ahead, Mr. DPR. >> If I may. Yeah. In the all of the years I've served on council and the planning board, um meeting our affordable housing
obligation was always apartments. I am so happy to see we're meeting part of that obligation with town homes owned by the residents that are going to purchase them. That's that's a first in Paripony. I hope we get more of these and no more,
in my personal opinion, no more apartments. I agree completely, Mr. Pierre. Thank you for saying that. All right. Any other members of the board with any comments? Okay, I'll open the floor to any um Oh
jeez, my words are escaping me right now. Any motion? Any motions? Thank you, >> Mr. Chairman. >> Go ahead, Mr. Dich. A motion to approve application number 26 col502 toll NJ1 LLC 4 Gall drive block 175 lot
52 zone R O Lordian final major site plan with C variance and major soil moving permit for construction of the 178 multifamily inclusionary town home development with surface parking facilities amenities and
landscaping. >> Okay, do we have a second? Second. >> All right. Uh, are there any members of the board that have any questions or comments about >> We have to we have to put all the add-ons the conditions >> with the condition >> all the conditions. >> Okay. >> Conditions of with the conditions of
approval uh with um title 39 um with the um there will be a developers uh agreement. uh easements will be uh
provided to my office for review. Uh that uh the applicant will comply with the review letters of the board planner and the board engineer as revised through current with the exceptions that are placed on the record. Um and uh
attorneyino I'm sure will uh catch me on any other conditions of approval. And we we have by the way we've had transcribers and we'll have transcripts. We'll provide those to Mr. Wzelle and we'll make sure that the resolution
covers any other conditions that that may have come up that you know. >> Yeah, I'm sure I'm sure attorney keeps copious notes of these things. >> Mr. Miller keeps better notes than I do, but uh we also will have the transcript. >> There was one about the garage doors and
you work with the professionals if I remember. The architect was very kind about that and said, >> "Yeah, with um well, exactly. There we go. Uh I knew if I had look at my notes more completely." Um >> so with the condition of approval with the garage doors uh to work with board
uh some variety of the doors, maybe some windowed, maybe some not. It just to create some variety, >> right? But in essence, working with the board professionals with regard to that. >> I think Mr. Adich who moved it in whose second? >> Mr. Shaw. >> Mr. Shaw.
>> Okay. I think both parties would agree to add those on to their motion, right? >> Absolutely. Yes. >> You didn't want to repeat all that. >> Nope. >> No, I didn't think so. >> Okay. >> Uh, >> roll call. Desai. Mayor Desai.
>> Roll call. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> DPro. >> Yes. >> Dinsore. >> Yes. >> Npalitono. >> Yes. >> Patel. Yes. >> Shaw. >> Yes. >> Von Aken. >> Yes. >> Congratulations. >> Okay. Great. Thank you. Thank you all very much.
>> That concludes our agenda for tonight. I'll entertain a motion to close. >> Motion. Motion. >> All right. All in favor? >> I. >> Okay. So moved. >> Now you got to stay. >> All right. Picture time, everyone.
>> You all got to smile. >> How do you want us to get organized? >> Hold all this paperwork. You can hand it to Nora. >> Oh, really? >> Yes. >> One at the back there. >> Hang on to your way. And it goes to your right.